Hacker News Reader

Comment by sabertoothed | Hacker News Reader

> Deals are made in UK because English law is really, really good.

Can you elaborate?

We have reliable courts which are known for their independence.

We also have alternatives to courts - called Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms - which operate out of London mostly, and are known to be free of political interference etc.

See http://www.lcia.org/ for an example. You'd write an ADR into a contract and use these people if you didn't want to use our courts. And our courts respect this arrangement if it is agreed upon and treated properly. It's often used between parties even where nobody involved is a British company or person.

So this is like Arbitration in the US?

In the UK, how are they "known to be free of political interference etc."?

Is it easy for people to contest a decision that looks unfair and bring it to the regular courts ?

Yes since the Magna Carta of 1215

Is it a popular folklore or there is actual, comparable to others advantage in regard to laws?

Britain lately became known for lack of law enforcements towards dirty money. I also not sure how one can manage to claim strong laws and be a surveillance capital of, say, Europe. I'd assume that's because the situation is even worse in other places.

I think so, we don't have state ids. The people are not generally against cctv as far as i can tell, and thats why we have the most survelance. The people more or less trust the state structures. You can see this in the police force, its not combatative unlike, say, the US. The state and the people work together, and thats a cultural norm spanning thousands of years. There are lots of superficially democratically questionable things in uk society, like monarchy. But it all works out becuase i think people do feel empowered with a say in the state apparatus. British people are extremely honest https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h... . I think this has been enabled by a long history of rule following, from the rulers and the people.

On your actual point i doubt there is noticable difference in laws. I think culture is more important than laws and our laws are just codifying our culture

So do virtually all other Northern and Western European countries.

What you have that they don't have is the English language as the native language. Non UK lawyers (as me) chose to UK arbitration etc. because of the language, not because we trust your courts more than the German, French or Dutch courts.

Yes, arbitration and other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in most other countries could be conducted in English, but with UK arbitration we know that we would be able to read the statutes, court rulings etc that the arbitrators read and refer to, in the same language as them.

You might find this of interest:

https://www.qlts.com/blog/why-english-law-governs-most-inter...

> QLTS is the official fast-track route that enables foreign lawyers to qualify as solicitors in England and Wales.

Not really an independent opinion so it seems. It would surprise me if they suggested something else, considering their business.

Everyone can find someone to agree with on the internet :)

International people have been judged in "Den Haag" a lot more than anywhere else.

Here are my "opinionated" sources:

> The International Court of Justice (abbreviated ICJ)[1] is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). It settles legal disputes between member states and gives advisory opinions to authorized UN organs and specialized agencies. ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justi... )

> Theresa May has failed to get the EU to agree that Britain will retain a voice at the European court of justice in return for her concession that the Luxembourg court will retain a role in protecting citizens’ rights in the UK after Brexit. ( https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/07/brexit-uk-f... )

Personal: haven't ever heard a UK court settle for international affairs. Hague is the only one I remember from events ( eg. Khadaffi, Bemba, ... )

Ad hominem.

You have 0 objective references. I have at least 1 ( Wikipedia) and 1 that should be pro UK ( UK news paper)

You edited your post later to add those references, then made this comment!

The examples you have given are interesting because they are recent and the province of international agreements. I wonder if English law is used widely in other places and for different agreements as part of a legacy of empire?

In so far as the empire spread the English language. Otherwise, I am not so sure. I have never heard in a negotiation that a party wanted English venue with reference to the British Empire, respect of English courts or similar. It's simply more convenient due to the language.

Usually it's a matter of negotiation. In a contract between a French and a German company, the French lawyer will suggest French law and venue, the German lawyer will suggest German law and venue. If either of them have sufficient bargaining power, it may very well prevail. Among equal parties, a compromise would usually involve selecting a "neutral" legal system and venue. English is the language everyone knows, so usually English is chosen. It's not always UK. Sometimes it Hong Kong or Singapore (typically if a party is Asian). Sometimes it's New York. Generally, European lawyers are wary of American courts and American law with its exotic remedies such as punitive damages. Also, between Europeans it seems unnecessary to go to another continent for arbitration.

Good point, but then why not the US, Canada, etc?

I suggested in another comment a historical component to this, namely the legacy of the British empire. It seems logical that having exported our governance for a long time our legal system would be well known through the world too.

>Why not the US, Canada, etc?

English law tends to be incorporated into contracts that are made among countries in Europe, Africa, Asia and parts of the Caribbean. However, contracts made between US entities and other entities frequently incorporate the law of the State of New York and even refer all disputes to courts in the City and County of New York so venue is locked down. There's also an increasing tendency for contracts (other than those for services) to incorporate as a legal framework the "United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods" [0].

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_C...

TIL, thank you!

English law (technically the laws of England and Wales) are not "really, really good". English law is incorporated in contracts because of ubiquity. Over the years, and for historical reasons, English contract law has become a lingua franca (mirroring the English language) in international commerce - just as likely to be understood by a company in France as by a company in China. There's nothing inherently superior to English contract law versus that of other jurisdictions. In the US a similar phenomenon exists relative to corporate law - among the reasons Delaware is such a popular incorporation jurisdiction is that nationwide in each state the corporate law of Delaware is understood. In fact, in certain "national" law schools it's the only corporate law taught.

English law is also a common law system, relying heavily on previous precedents that have been set down in similar decisions. Civil law juristictions (for example France) give less weight to precedence, so courts have narrower scope to interpret areas the current law does not cover exactly.

See here for an explanation (EDIT: more relevant secion from same wikipedia page) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#Common_law_as_a_fou...

English civil law therefore has gained popularity, as it is reliable (precedents can be consulted), and because judges can easily adapt previous rulings to new circumstances.

That's a bit off... Common law has a slightly bigger emphasis on precedents. Mostly because precedents can expand laws and establish conventions as laws. In civil legal system, precedents are clarifying and very specific.

Common legal system is simpler at local levels(because it doesn't have to consult a central authority), and along with British empire - it is widely applied.

No, it isn't. While I have a lot of sympathies for common low (e.g. jury etc.), it is very inefficient. Codified law is much more efficient.

Do you know why finance contracts in baking, M&A etc. in common low are so extraordinary complex? You have to consider fuer every eventuality and every former case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com