No. 3]
Choice of Law and the Doctrine of Renvoi
Stanley B. Stein *
If a central object of our legal system is to provide equal justice
to all who come before our courts, then it is necessary to develop
principles of law so that, in so far as possible, similar cases will
lead to similar decisions. This requirement of uniformity and con-
sistency runs through all branches of law, but the problems which
it generates become particularly acute in those cases which may
require the application of rules of law that are foreign to our courts.
In cases having elements that connect them with other jurisdictions,
one of the questions that arises is whether foreign rules of law
should be reflected in the decision of the court, and if so, to what
extent. In essence this is a question of choice of law.
This paper will seek to examine the choice of law problem.
This will involve a brief discussion of “characterization” and its
relationship to the choice of law, a critical examination of the
renvoi doctrine, and finally, some suggestions towards a reform-
ulation of choice of law concepts.
1. Characterization
Once a court has decided to accept jurisdiction in a case, it
will normally take into consideration the foreign elements raised
by any of the facts. According to Graveson, to ignore them, “would
make a travesty of justice”.’ Most courts will therefore refer to
the appropriate foreign system of law whenever they are asked
to attach legal consequences to a situation that has been created
under foreign law. This reference to foreign law may be motivated
by a desire for “justice” between the parties, or by a feeling for
what is desirable among countries in a world community. What-
ever the cause, the result is that each forum has developed a set
of conflicts rules which, when certain classes of issues arise, may
lead the court to apply foreign law.
* The author is a student-at-law who completed an MA. in economics at
Yale University before returning to the University of Toronto where he
obtained his LL.B. in 1970.
‘R.H. Graveson, The Conflict of laws (6th ed.), p. 65.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 17
The process of characterization
is intimately related to the
selection of the proper foreign system of law. In many cases the
way in which the question before the court is “characterized” will
pre-determine the choice of foreign law and hence, the substantive
law that is applied to the question. For this reason, the technique
of characterization is fundamental to the ultimate choice of law.
According to the late Dean Falconbridge, in the first phase of
characterization, “The court must characterize, or define the nature
of the legal question, or each of the legal questions, involved in
the factual situation ….2 A number of potential problems may
arise in this initial step of characterization. In defining the “ques-
tion”, the court may be led to look to the general nature of the
legal problem before it (e.g. is the case in torts or contracts?),
or the court may look directly to the issues raised by the case.
Usually this will not lead to any internal inconsistencies since the
courts of any one country will almost always categorize similar
legal problems in a similar manner. For this reason, courts may
tend not to discuss the more general question at all, but will look
directly to the issues raised by the case. Among those countries
having similar legal traditions no inconsistency is likely to arise
in this examination and categorization process. On the other hand,
where countries have different legal traditions, a case involving
say, breach of promise to marry, may be characterized by some
as a contract action, and by others as a tort action. 3 But since
discrepancies like this are generally inevitable, and are often pre-
dictable, they should not be a matter of great concern.
Having decided the nature of the legal issues raised, the second
phase of characterization involves the determination of a connecting
factor. This is done by fixing on “some outstanding fact which
establishes a natural connexion between the factual situation before
the court and a particular system of law”.4 This selection and
use of particular facts to lead to a system of foreign law reflects
an application of the conflicts rule of the forum. Thus in cases
concerning title to land, the English conflicts rule is to use the
situs of the land as the connecting factor to lead the court to
the proper foreign system of law. Similarly, in deciding those cases
which question the formal validity of a foreign marriage, the law of
the locus celebrationis will be used. Having thus been led to another
2 J.D. Falconbridge, Essays on the Conflicts of Laws (2nd ed.), p. 51.
3 G.C. Cheshire, Private International Law (7th ed.), p. 41.
4Ibid., p. 40.
6 See for example, Falconbridge, supra, n. 2, pp. 38-39.
No. 3]
THE DOCTRINE OF RENVOI
system of law, the court of the forum must then examine the
potentially applicable, rules of law, and then apply those rules that
it has selected. In this manner, foreign law becomes the lex causae.
2. Choice of “law”
Unfortunately, while the conflicts rules of the forum may be
clear in leading a court to the proper foreign country, they generally
do not indicate which of the foreign rules of law should be applied
to the case. The problem may be one of defining the word “law”.
Perhaps as a result of overworking phrases such as lex locus
celebrationis or lex situs, the traditional use of Latin has obscured
the meaning to be given to its English counter-part. In any event,
one of the first questions to be faced when a court is referred
by its conflicts rules to foreign “law”, is what foreign law? In
most instances the court entertains little doubt. The law referred
to is a substantive rule of law of the foreign country.’ But in
the early nineteenth century an English court attempted to decide
the case before it in the same manner as it believed the foreign
court would decide it.7 This “foreign court” approach has, ever
since, led to conjecture on whether or not foreign “law” properly
means the entire body of foreign law, including, in addition to the
substantive law rules, the conflicts of law rules. Many of the
questions raised by this problem of choice of “law” have been
subsumed by various approaches to the doctrine of renvoi.
As indicated, a reference to foreign “law” presents a court with
several alternatives. Consider a simple, two country model. The first
alternative open to the court of say, Utopia, is to consider a reference
through a connecting factor to the “law” of Ruritania to mean
the internal substantive law of Ruritania. This option is illustrated
in Fig. 1. The internal conflicts rules of Utopia indicate that since
the case before the courts contains foreign fact elements, there
may be a need to refer to foreign law. The forum’s set of choice
of law rules are then examined in light of any connecting factors
that may be present in the case. Since we assume a connecting
factor is present and is recognized by the choice of law rules of
Utopia as leading to the “law” of Ruritania, there is then a reference
to the substantive laws of Ruritania. This is the approach taken by
most courts when they are referred to foreign “law”.8 It is simple
0 A.V. Dicey and J.H.C. Morris, The Conflict of Laws (8th ed.), p. 62.
7 Collier v. Rivaz, 163 E.R. 608.
8 See e.g., Bremer v. Freeman, (1857), 10 Moo. P.C. 306, where this view
was adopted by the Privy Council. See also Cheshire, supra, n. 3, p. 55.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 17
and straightforward, and although it may present problems in the
determination of what the foreign substantive rules really are, the
intricacies of the renvoi doctrine are avoided.
The second alternative open to the court is to adopt what has
been characterized as “partial renvoi”. In this case the court of
Utopia, when referred to the “law” of Ruritania, looks at the whole
of the law of Ruritania. But since the case may also contain fact
elements foreign to Ruritania, the Utopian court will refer first to
the choice of law rules of Ruritania. If the Ruritanian choice of
law rules then indicate that in this case the substantive law of
Ruritania would be applied, then the result, as shown in Fig. 2A,
is the same as under the first alternative. Such a case might arise
where the case litigated in Utopia concerns land situated in Pur-
UTOPIA
SET OF LAWS
RUIUTANIA
SET OF LAWS
FIG. 1. Reference to the “Law” of Ruritania Means the Substantive
Law of Ruritania.
UTOPIA
SET OF LAWS
RURITANIA
SET OF LAWS
FIG. 2A. Partial Renvoi Avoided when both countries have an Identical
Choice of Law Rule.
No. 3]
UTOPIA
SET OF LAWS
THE DOCTRINE OF RENVOI
RURITANIA
SET OF LAWS
FIG. 2B. “Partial Renvoi”.
UTOPIA
RURITANIA
FIG. 3A. “Total Renvoi” (Renvoi accepted by the Foreign Court).
Initial Reference to Foreign Court.
—
– Renvoi Accepted.
UTOPIA
SET OF LAWS
RURITANIA
SET OF LAWS
FIG. 3B. “Total Renvoi” (Renvoi rejected by the Foreign Court).
Initial Reference to Foreign Court.
–
–
– Renvoi Rejected.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 17
tania. If the choice of law rules of both countries refer to the
lex situs, then the substantive law of Ruritania would be applied.
It is, however, possible that the choice of law rules of Ruritania
will refer to the “law” of Utopia. The court of Utopia may then
consider this as a reference back to its substantive law, and will
proceed to apply the lex fori.9 This case, as shown in Fig. 2B,
may be illustrated by the type of case where it arises most often,
namely those cases involving personal law. For example, X, a citizen
of Utopia, may be domiciled in Ruritania. If the choice of law
rules of Utopia would look to the lex domicilii on the facts before
it, this (on our assumption) would be considered to be a reference
to the whole of the law of Ruritania. However, if Ruritanian choice
of law rules would look to the lex patriae in such cases, then there
would be a reference back to Utopian law. At this point the court
of Utopia decides to terminate the potential game of “international
ping-pong” and applies the substantive lex fori. There is thus what
has been termed a partial renvoi, or single remission back to
Utopian law.
Although the lex jori is ultimately applied, it is only because,
in theory, Utopia allows the Ruritanian choice of law rules to make
the final choice of which country’s substantive laws are to be the
lex causae. Implicit in this decision of the Utopian court to apply
the lex jori may be the view that a court of Ruritania, if faced
with the same case, would have looked directly to the substantive
laws of Utopia. If so, this should be contrasted with the apparent
willingness of the Utopian court to apply Ruritanian choice of law
rules. Alternatively, the ultimate application of substantive Utopian
law may stem from a policy decision to avoid another reference
to Utopian choice of law rules and the consequent logical dilemmas
of a circulus inextricabilis. Finally, the policy basis for this decision
may rest, at least in part, on the court’s predilection towards applying
the substantive lex or.
The third alternative open to the court is to adopt a theory of
“total renvoi” or as it has been more descriptively called, the
“foreign court theory”. According to this particular theory, a court
in Utopia, when referred to the “law” of Ruritania will attempt
to decide the case as it believes a court of Ruritania would decide
it. This procedure can, in itself, lead to several alternatives. First,
if the Utopian judge, wearing his Ruritanian robes, decides that
Ruritania’s choice of law rules would refer to Utopian law, and
9 See e.g., Forgo’s Case, 10 Clunet (1883), 64; also discussed in Cheshire,
supra, n. 3, p. 56.
No. 3]
THE DOCTRINE OF RENVOI
Utopian “law” is substantive law only, the case would be decided
by Utopian law, or what is really the lex fori. This leads to the
same sequence as that illustrated in Fig. 2B.
However, according to a strict application of the total renvoi
theory, the following chain of thought should occur. Since Utopia
considers a reference to Ruritanian “law” to be a reference to its
whole set of laws, it is to be expected that a reference back by
Ruritanian law to Utopian “law” would similarly be a reference
to the whole of Utopian law. If this is so, then there should be a
second reference by Utopian choice of law rules back again to
Ruritanian law or, in other words, a total renvoi. If the Utopian
judge thinks that Ruritania would accept this second remission
and apply its own substantive law at this point, then the lex causae
would be the substantive law of Ruritania.’0 On this analysis, it
might also be said that “partial renvoi” is applied by the Ruritanian
court. This is illustrated in Fig. 3A. Alternatively, Ruritanian choice
of law rules might reject the renvoi doctrine and refuse this second
remission, and the result will be an application of the original
lex forn. This is shown in Fig. 3B.
Unfortunately, this last analysis contains an inherent incon-
sistency. After the Utopian judge has donned his Ruritanian robes,
he finds that the Ruritanian choice of law rules have directed him
back to the “laws” of Utopia. If he were to behave in a consistent
manner, he would quickly doff his assumed garb and examine
Utopian choice of law rules. However, since he has already estab-
lished that Utopian choice of law rules will only lead him back
into Ruritanian robes, he is faced with two alternatives. The first
is to spend the balance of his judicial life changing hats on this
circulus inextricabilis; a most undesirable solution. The second is
to call a halt to his valet’s activity and this game of “international
ping-pong” and apply either Utopian or Ruritanian law. In theory
this choice depends on whether or not Ruritania accepts the renvoi
doctrine. But if Ruritania rejects the renvoi doctrine and refuses
the second remission, the Utopian judge is in the happy position
of being able to apply his lex fori. In the few cases where this
problem has arisen, the country in the role of Ruritania has rejected
the renvoi and the other country has been able to apply its lex fori.
However, if Ruritania does accept the renvoi doctrine, or second
10 See e.g., In Re Annesley, (1926) Ch. 692; In Re Askew, (1930) 2 Ch. 259.
11 See e.g., In Re Ross, (1930) 1 Ch. 377.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 17
remission, there is no logical justification for stopping the circulus
at this point.’2
3. A Critique of the Renvoi Doctrine
Despite what appear to be logical fallacies, this “foreign court”
doctrine has attracted considerable support from British and Amer-
ican scholars.’ 3 A substantial volume of probing into its intricacies
and ramifications has been undertaken by its proponents, 4 and
opponents, 15 with the net result being an excessive devotion of
academic attention to the doctrine of renvoi. It is submitted that
preoccupation with the doctrine of renvoi has obscured the need
for a reconsideration of the fundamental rules of choice of law.
The balance of this paper will be devoted to further analysis of
the weaknesses of the renvoi doctrine, and will conclude with an
attempt towards a reformulation of choice of law principles.
The first salvo of attack on the use of the renvoi doctrine should
be aimed at its basic assumptions. Traditionally, the renvoi doctrine
has been relied upon to enable Utopian courts to recognize and
enforce rights that have been acquired in Ruritania. Under this
“vested rights” theory put forth by Professor Beale, “A right
having been created by the appropriate law, the recognition of its
existence should follow everywhere.” 16 This theory has been widely
criticized, most notably by Professor W.W. Cook. According to
Professor Cook, a legal right is only the creature of the legal system
that creates it. On this assumption, the right cannot exist outside
the territory of the legal system that created it unless it has been
re-created by foreign law.’7 Further, as Dean Falconbridge observed,
12But cf. T.A. Cowan, in “Renvoi Does Not Involve a Logical Fallacy” in
(1938-39) 87 U. of Penn. L. Rev. pp. 34-49 at p. 47 maintains that Ruritania
“not only can, but must, stop at the second reference, although it need not do
so before the point is reached”. It is submitted that Cowan is considering
the practical necessities involved in the application of the doctrine. This does
not, however, rebut its theoretical short-comings.
13 A.V. Dicey and Keith, Conflict of Laws (5th ed.), pp. 863 ff.; E.N. Griswold,
“Renvoi Revisited” in (1937-38) 51 Harvard L. Rev., pp. 1165-1208, at p. 1183.
Law”, in 10 Col. L. Rev., pp. 190-207.
14 See e.g., Griswold, op. cit., supra note 13.
15 See e.g., E.G. Lorenzen, “The Renvoi Theory and the Application of Foreign
16H. Beale, “Summary of the Conflict of Laws” in Cases on Conflict of
Laws, Vol. III, p. 517, as quoted in J.H. Beale, Treatise on the Conflict of
Laws (1935), Vol. 3, p. 1969, as quoted in W.R. Lederman, “Classification in
Private International Law”, 1951, 29 Can. Bar Rev. 168 at p. 179.
17Lederman, supra n. 16, p. 180.
No. 3]
THE DOCTRINE OF RENVOI
the majority of cases, courts have not seriously attempted to
S.. In
apply in practice the theory of acquired rights to which they have some-
times paid lip service… Anglo-American courts have refused to adopt,
or have ignored, the renvoi doctrine (implicit in the acquired rights
theory) … Consequently the forum does not enquire how the foreign
court would decide the specific case which is before the forum and does
not know whether there is any foreign created right to be enforced.
‘The forum thus enforces not a foreign right but a right created by its
own law.'” s
Even when a court does purport to apply the renvoi doctrine,
as some English courts have,19 it must rely on foreign experts for
information as to what the foreign law is. This need for presentation
of evidence of foreign law introduces into the court’s procedure
certain elements of awkwardness and inefficiency. There are also
inherent dangers in the court’s attempt to apply foreign law 0
Since the judge is often forced to deal with alien concepts of law,
it would seem that a certain degree of distortion is ordinarily un-
avoidable in the application of any foreign rule.2’ Thus it would
appear that no forum can be relied upon to apply the substantive
law of a foreign country in an entirely consistent manner. These
problems are compounded when the court also seeks to understand
and apply foreign choice of law rules. Again, quoting from Falcon-
bridge,
… if the court is misinformed as to the foreign law or fails to interpret
accurately the evidence of the foreign law, the supposed application of
the doctrine of the total renvoi may lead to a grotesque result or a mis.
carriage of justice.22
Finally, the inherent complexities of the renvoi doctrine, and
the evidentiary problems which it raises often enable judges to
employ either foreign or domestic law according to their personal
view as to which is the better rule of law. In the guise of
“interpreting” foreign choice of law rules, the court is thereby able
to
to introduce its own doctrines of public policy. According
Ehrenzweig,
… our best judges, when making use of the ‘looseness in the joints of
the [choice of law] apparatus’ ‘by employing manipulative techniques’
or all purpose techniques such as the ‘proper law,’ often do so in order
18Falconbridge, supra n. 2, pp. 24-25, quoted in part from W.W. Cook,
Logical and Legal Bases of the Conflict of Laws, (1942), p. 21.
19 See e.g., In Re Ross, (1930) 1 Ch. 377; In Re Anneseley, (1926) Ch. 692;
In Re Askew, (1930) 2 Ch. 259.
20 See e.g., In Re Duke of Wellington, (1947) Ch. 506.
21 A.A. Ehrenzweig, Private International Law, p. 173.
22 Falconbridge, supra n. 2, p. 178.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 17
to substitute a better foreign rule for much ‘that is archaic and foolish’
in their own law. 23
On the other hand, the court may reject the foreign rule of law,
and apply the lex fori because it feels that the latter is the better
rule of law. One author claims that, “the search for the better
rule of law may lead a court almost automatically to its own
lawbooks.”
24
One American judge has confessed to this judicial sleight-of-hand
and has said,
We prefer to apply the better rule of law in conflicts cases just as is
done in non-conflicts cases, when the choice is open to us. If the law of
some other state is outmoded,… we will try to see our way clear to
apply our own law instead… Courts have always done this in conflicts
cases, but have usually covered up what they have done by employing
manipulative techniques such as characterization and renvoi.2 5
Thus it seems that the logical intricacies and the evidentiary
problems which accompany the renvoi doctrine may in fact prove
to be effective guises for judicial eclecticism and law reform. While
judicial law-making may, in certain contexts, be a commendable
activity toward the development of the lex fori, it is not altogether
evident that a case should provide this opportunity merely because
it raises foreign fact elements. Further, this type of judicial activity
clearly detracts from the parties’ expectations of certainty.
In summary then, it is apparent that the renvoi doctrine is
subject to many weaknesses. It is built on the shaky foundation
of purporting to recognize foreign acquired rights, it contains
inherent logical fallacies, its application requires the inefficient
and often misplaced reliance on expert testimony, and finally, the
ultimate choice of the lex causae may reflect arbitrary judicial
discretion rather than a rigorous and consistent application of the
doctrine. In light of these criticisms, it is difficult to support utili-
zation of the renvoi doctrine as a valid technique for the choice
of the proper lex causae. It is almost devoid of the certainty and
the predictability that are desirable in a court of law.
4. Towards a Reformulation of Choice of Law Principles
As stated at the outset, the essential question in the choice of
law problem is when, and to what extent, the lex fori should be
23 Ehrenzweig, supra n. 21, p. 100; See also R.A. Leflar’ “Choice-Influencing
Considerations in Conflicts Law” in (1966) 41 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 267 at p. 301.
24 Leflar, supra n. 23, p. 298.
25 Clark v. Clark, 222 A. 2d 205, 209 (N.H. 1966), per Kenison, C.J.
No. 33
THE DOCTRINE OF RENVOI
supplemented with or replaced by the substantive law of another
country. There is no doubt that many cases do necessitate a refer-
ence to foreign law. However, what appears to be lacking are well-
formulated principles for determining the nature and extent of this
reference.
It is submitted that it is first necessary to have a well-defined,
yet flexible set of choice of law rules. To this end, it should be
fundamental that a court will apply the lex fori unless there are
substantial reasons for not doing so. By employing the lex fori, the
court avoids the practical difficulties and inefficiencies of hearing
adequate proof of foreign law. It is able to apply a system of laws
with which it is familiar, and is presumably better able to render
just and consistent decisions.26 If the court has predetermined that
in certain fact situations it will deviate from the lex fori, then the
parties can be assured that in those fact situations there will likely
be a substantial measure of predictability and uniformity of result.
Perhaps the best existing examples of such cases are the invariable
references to the lex situs of immovables, or the lex loci celebrationis
to determine the validity of marriages. In such cases, the lex fori
can perhaps be characterized as inadequate or incomplete for the
purposes of reaching a solution that is just to the parties 27
In many cases it is not possible to predetermine whether or not
there should be a reference to foreign law. In these instances, a
broad range of factors may be potentially relevant.28 Most important
among these is the need for justice in the individual case as reflected
by the underlying policies of the court. On the other hand, if it is
highly inconvenient to determine and apply the foreign law, a court
should not hesitate to revert to the lex fori. Similarly, if a court is
led to a foreign system of law that will produce a result that is
repugnant to the ideas of the forum, the lex fori should be substi-
tuted.29 However, it should be made clear that public policy is in
fact being used. The enunciation of public policy as the basis for
decisions will, in some cases, more clearly indicate the true rationale
for the courts’ choice of the better rule of law. This should yield
benefits in predictability through the avoidance of misleading refer-
ences to manipulative techniques such as renvoi.30
20I.F.G. Baxter, Essays on Private Law, p. 29.
2 Ibid., pp. 32-33.
23 See e.g., Leflar, supra n. 23, p. 279.
29 Baxter, supra n. 26, p. 35.
30 See also Ehrenzweig, supra n. 21, p. 173.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 17
Next, it should be made clear that a reference to a foreign system
of “law” is a reference to its rules of substantive law only. This
may be supported by the argument that an initial reference to a
foreign system of law should, in effect, be conclusive on the choice
of law question. Following a policy decision to deviate from the
normal procedure of applying the substantive lex fori, there should
be a reference only to the foreign substantive law. If this view is
not acceptable, and a further, or secondary, characterization accord-
ing to foreign choice of law rules is deemed desirable, guidelines
may still be established to avoid the problems of the renvoi doctrine.
First, the circumstances under which secondary characterization
may occur should be identified. Second, in those cases where there
is a conflict of choice of law rules (as in our earlier domicile –
nationality example), the forum’s choice of law rule should be
preferred, not through an application of the renvoi, but as a matter
of policy.
Another mode of establishing a degree of certainty in the ultimate
decision of the court is through the use of statutes. An example
of this is the British statute commonly known as Lord Kingsdown’s
Act.31 Although this statute permits the application of either forum
or foreign law, it is helpful as an expression of forum policy. Unfor-
tunately, in many instances when the legislatures have attempted
to control the choice of law, the phraseology of the statute has been
poor, and the statutes have led to confusion and distorting re-inter-
pretation by the courts 2 Further, as Leflar points out, “socio-
economic standards can change faster than disinterested legislators
can repeal old and ‘minor’ legislation.” 33
On a broader scope, codification at the international level may
produce a degree of uniformity at both the national and international
level. If we can assume that all legal systems are prima facie equally
fair and reasonable, then international uniformity will not neces-
sarily improve the law in any one country. 4 However, there may
well be some positive value in creating uniformity at the interna-
tional level with regard to matters such as title and status. It is
certainly desirable that a potential series of actions to settle an
estate be avoided, and that possible “limping” situations respecting
31 See Falconbridge, supra n. 2, p. 153; Baxter, supra n. 26, p. 33.
3 2 Leflar, supra n. 23, pp. 273 ff. For a fuller discussion on the limitations
of the use of legislation for determining choice of law, see also D.F. Cavers,
The Choice of Lav Process, cap. 9.
33 Leflar, supra n. 23, p. 274.
34 Baxter, supra n. 26, p. 45.
No. 3]
THE DOCTRINE OF RENVOI
legitimacy or marital status be eliminated. Further, international
uniformity will create some degree of predictability at the interna-
tional level and will thereby help to curtail potential “forum-
shopping”.3 While there may be no great need for uniform substan-
tive laws, some international uniformity in choice of law rules
should be encouraged. But the technique for achieving such unifor-
mity should be through international conventions, and not through
a supposed adherence to the renvoi doctrine. It is unfortunate that,
largely through the unwillingness of many countries to compromise
their traditional rules of choice of law, the various international
conferences on private international law have met with little
success.
36
The development of a consistent and realistic approach to the
choice of law problem is not a simple task. The renvoi doctrine
has often been used in the past as a device for arriving at a choice
of law for reasons of policy rather than logic. The courts should
abandon this choice of law technique, and should attempt a reformu-
lation of their conflict rules in the light of logic and socio-economic
reality. Decisions based on public policy should have their ratio
decidendi clearly enunciated. In this manner, valid choice-influencing
considerations will not be obscured by the doctrine of renvoi.
3 5 Leflar, supra n. 23, pp. 282-3; R.P. Leflar “Conflicts Law: More on
Choice-Influencing Considerations” in (1966) 54 Calif. L. Rev. 1584, at p. 1586.
36 Graveson, supra n. 1, p. 25; Dicey, supra n. 6, p. 69.
