A court confronted with a choice-of-law problem must determine what methodology to utilize to resolve the problem. Among the choices available to the court are interest analysis and the "most significant relationship" test of the Restatement Second of Conflicts. Concluding that those two approaches differ in method and result, the author compares the two for the purpose of determining which approach is preferable and why. The comparison is effected by using each approach in a series of choice-of-law cases. The author concludes that interest analysis is the preferable approach because it produces more rational results, compels a more precise consideration of the reasons underlying conflicting local laws and better enables courts to utilize prior decisions in resolving choice-of-law problems. In addition, the author finds that the approach of the Restatement Second of Conflicts sends conflicting signals to courts, requiring some degree of interest analysis but then blurring the results of such analysis with a territorial bias and a reversion to lex loci conflicts rules.
David E. Seidelson,
Interest Analysis or the Restatement Second of Conflicts: Which Is the Preferable Approach to Resolving Choice-of-Law Problems?,
Duq. L. Rev.
Available at: https://dsc.duq.edu/dlr/vol27/iss1/5