The UK is one of the major centers for international and domestic trade and commerce both for the European market and global market. The British law, the judicial system (courts), and other legal services have played a vital role in the development of this sector of commerce which has always been hindered by the reliability, certainty and just application of the British law on contract. Since 1991 the British contract law has been based on the Rome Convection. However, the European Commission sought to change to the prevailing law in contracts with an aim of more efficient regulation in the contract law that would see to it that businesses’ and consumers’ needs are met. Therefore after consultations, the commission came up with new regulations that were known as Rome 1. Rome 1 allowed parties to a contract choose the country on which they shall base their contract following the laws and provisions of that country; this was referred to as the “Choice of law.”
In the Rome Convention, the laws were based on the inter-government agreement, where international parties chose a law clause based on their agreement to govern their contractual relations. However these contracts constantly failed in dealing with the disputes as they were sidelined and never employed during commercial concession. However, Rome 1 addressed this problem by converting the Convention into fully-enforceable Regulation, which was incorporated into the jurisdiction of the European Union Court. This brought about uniformity throughout the European nation’s courts in dealing with disputes. As a result, the commercial disputes governance became more transparent with clear predictability of the outcome of transnational commercial disputes. This has made it possible for any dispute to be dealt with in any nation bringing about a similar result. The elimination of different law choices has improved the commercial relationship between the nations as fear of being subjected to unfair chosen law becomes forgotten. There is clarity in common understanding the issues in Rome 1from the removal of ambiguity in earlier Convention.
Adoption of Rome 1 for instance gives guideline which restricts the choice of law. This brings about equitability on the parties in the dispute without the favor of one party at expense of the other’s rights. In the Convention time, free choice of law by one party mostly was against the will and the right of the other party, as mostly it favored the choosing side. In addition, employment of clear rule when working on the national law in cases without reference to governing law of contract has brought about fairness on all parties involved. This is because an agreed-upon rule is reached by both parties in a way neither side feel oppressed or favored.
On the other hand, changes in the employees governing law have significantly benefited the individual involved, his home country, and the country he works from. In cases where an employee is permanently working in a foreign country, the Regulation allows that the law of that country governs the employee. This change brings about coverage of the workers working from that country, even when their work takes place outside the country, for examples, the airline worker. Different law applications on different countries on an individual is minimized by confining him on the country’s law he is working from. For this reason, a risky judgment that does not agree with the host country’s law is avoided and a worker finds it easy in observing common regulations. On the other hand, where an individual works temporally in a country the regulation dictates that the law of the home country apply to protect the worker. This minimizes cases of conviction of the worker by the law of the country he is working in, by using the home law to protect him.
More importantly, much benefit is drawn from the Regulation being more an instrument of the community rather than just written informative law. The Regulation provides a minimum level of protection to foreign consumers through the provision of common knowledge concerning their right when embarking on foreign trade which was lacking in the Convention. This has removed the reluctance of business in conducting cross-border business in the realization that the rules that benefit the contractors across the border are similar and spread to all nations in conflict of law issues. As a result of these benefits, it is doubtful whether it was worthwhile repealing the Convention.
Baimbridge, M. Burkitt, B & Whyman, P 2006, implication of the euro: a critical perspective from the left, Taylor & Francis, Macomb.
Craig, P. & Burca, G 2008, EU law: text, cases, and materials, Oxford University Press, London.
Ferrari, F. & Leible, S 2009, Rome 1Regulation: The law applicable to Contractual Obligations in Europe, Selleir European law publ., Deutschland.
Greene, R. & Elffers, J 2000, The 48 laws of power, Penguin Books, London.
Keenan D 2007, Smith & Keenan’s English law: text and cases, Longman, New York.
Minford, P Nowell, E & Mahambare, V. 2005, Should Britain leave the EU: an economic analysis of a troubled relationship, Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton.
Peele, G 2004, Governing the UK: British politics in 21st century, Wiley-Blackwell, Malden.
Seatzu, F 2003, Insurance in private international law: a European perspective, Hart Publishing, Glidden.
Stone, P 2006, EU private international law: harmonization of laws, Edward Elgar Publishing, London.