law-choice-of-law
Choice of Law: Case remanded for application of Louisiana law
Sonat Exploration Co. v. Cudd Pressure Control, Inc. No. 06-0979 (Tex. Nov. 21, 2008) (Brister)(choice of
law when contract not express, enforceability of Rule 11 agreement, indemnity law and public policy of forum
state vs. foreign state)
SONAT EXPLORATION COMPANY v. CUDD PRESSURE CONTROL, INC.; from Harrison County; 6th district (06-03-00077-CV,
202 SW3d 901, 09-26-06) 2 petitions
The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment.
Justice Brister delivered the opinion of the Court.
The objectives behind choice-of-law rules generally and the Restatement rules in particular “may
best be attained in multistate transactions by letting the parties choose the law to govern the validity
of the contract and the rights created thereby.”[17] But the parties must make that choice themselves.
As the parties here failed to choose one law for all purposes in Louisiana, we must determine the
applicable law on other grounds.
We do not hold today that Louisiana law should cover all indemnity disputes stemming from oilfield
accidents there. When a contract involves oilfield work in many states, sophisticated parties should
generally be free to designate the law that will govern their relationship and have that choice
respected.[41] But the parties here chose no law for Louisiana jobs, and included an additional-
insured provision that would have been superfluous had they expected their indemnities to be
enforceable in such cases. Because contracts should be governed by the law the parties had in mind
when the contract was made,[42] we hold in these circumstances that Louisiana law applies.
08-0926
DOUGLAS K. BROCAIL v. DETROIT TIGERS, INC.; from Harris County; 14th district (14-06-00557-CV, 268
SW3d 90, 04-03-08) (foreign choice of law clause enforced)
In this case, a major league baseball player for the Detroit Tigers sued the Club for injuries to his pitching
arm. The Club was granted summary judgment on the grounds, inter alia, that the player’s claims were barred
by the federal Labor-Management Relations Act, the Michigan Workers Disability Compensation Act, and
Michigan’s statute of frauds. We affirm.
Text of section effective until April 01, 2009
Sec. 35.53. NOTICE OF LAW; DISPUTE RESOLUTION FORUM APPLICABLE TO
CONTRACT.
(a) This section applies to a contract only if:
(1) the contract is for the sale, lease, exchange, or other disposition for value of goods for the price,
rental, or other consideration of $50,000 or less;
(2) any element of the execution of the contract occurred in this state and a party to the contract
is:
(A) an individual resident of this state; or
(B) an association or corporation created under the laws of this state or having its principal place of
business in this state; and
(3) Section 1.301 of this code does not apply to the contract.
(b) If a contract to which this section applies contains a provision making the contract or any conflict
arising under the contract subject to the laws of another state, to litigation in the courts of another
state, or to arbitration in another state, the provisions must be set out conspicuously in print, type, or
other form of writing that is bold-faced, capitalized, underlined, or otherwise set out in such a manner
that a reasonable person against whom the provision may operate would notice. If the provision is not
set out as provided by this subsection, the provision is voidable by a party against whom it is sought
to be enforced.
(c) Repealed by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 570, Sec. 16(4), eff. Sept. 1, 1993.
Added by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 812, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Amended by Acts 1989, 71st
Leg., ch. 622, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 772, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989;
Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 840, Sec. 1, eff. Aug. 26, 1991; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 570, Sec. 14, 16
(4), eff. Sept. 1, 1993.
Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 728, Sec. 2.001, eff. September 1, 2005.