The debate over the proper analytical approach to choiceof- law problems continues among American legal scholars. Beginning with analysis of Bernhard v. Harrahs Club, recently decided by the California Supreme Court, the author explores the evolution and current state of American conflicts theory, focusing in particular on Professor Currie's governmental interest approach. The author advocates a return to more concrete and predictable choice-of-law rules. Recognizing that serious injustice may result from application of such rules, nonetheless the author suggests that the courts develop principled exceptions to the substantive rules based upon the ancient Aristotelian doctrine of equity. Under this doctrine, a court would apply the particular substantive rule unless it clearly appears that the reason underlying the rule cannot support its enforcement in the particular case.
The Need for a Reorientation in American Conflicts Law,
29 Hastings L.J. 731
Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol29/iss4/2