6 ms·

> Deals are made in UK because English law is really, really good. Can you elaborate?

hkt 8y ago
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/ 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.
- vmarsy 8y ago
  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 ?
  - tlarkworthy 8y ago
    Yes since the Magna Carta of 1215
    - avmich 8y ago
      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.
      - tlarkworthy 8y ago
        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/home-news/british-people-most-honest-in-the-world-and-have-uk-politicians-to-thank-a6922306.html 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
- flexie 8y ago
  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.
  - growlist 8y ago
    You might find this of interest: https://www.qlts.com/blog/why-english-law-governs-most-international-commercial-contracts https://www.qlts.com/blog/why-english-law-governs-most-inter...
    - NicoJuicy 8y ago
      > 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_Justice 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-fails-to-retain-voice-in-european-court-of-justice 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, ... )
pseudolus 8y ago
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.
- steve_gh 8y ago
  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_foundation_for_commercial_economies 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.
  - JAlexoid 8y ago
    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.
jayalpha 8y ago
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.

hkt 8y ago

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/ 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.

vmarsy 8y ago
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 ?
- tlarkworthy 8y ago
  Yes since the Magna Carta of 1215
  - avmich 8y ago
    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.
    - tlarkworthy 8y ago
      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/home-news/british-people-most-honest-in-the-world-and-have-uk-politicians-to-thank-a6922306.html 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
flexie 8y ago
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.
- growlist 8y ago
  You might find this of interest: https://www.qlts.com/blog/why-english-law-governs-most-international-commercial-contracts https://www.qlts.com/blog/why-english-law-governs-most-inter...
  - NicoJuicy 8y ago
    > 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_Justice 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-fails-to-retain-voice-in-european-court-of-justice 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, ... )

pseudolus 8y ago

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.

steve_gh 8y ago
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_foundation_for_commercial_economies 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.
- JAlexoid 8y ago
  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.

jayalpha 8y ago

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.