Questions on resolving true conflicts – the law of the forum

1) Why is Lilienthal a true conflict case?

2) Given what you’ve learned from Lilienthal, would you ever contract with an Oregonian, anywhere?

3) Why does the Lilienthal court not apply the public policy exception? What is the difference between the court’s ultimate reasoning and the public policy exception?

4) The Lilienthal court concludes that Oregon has an interest in its spendthrift law applying to the case, largely because the law would apply in a purely domestic context. If the Oregon legislature is willing to sacrifice the reliance interests of an Oregonian in order to protect an Oregon spendthrift (as in Olshen), why wouldn’t it be willing to sacrifice the reliance interests of a Californian in order to protect an Oregon spendthrift? But mightn’t the fact that a Californian is being disadvantaged be a reason that the Oregon legislature would want the statute to not apply?

5) Is it really true, as the Lilienthal court says, that “[t]he interests of neither jurisdiction are clearly more important than those of the other”? Would the court have come to a different conclusion if California’s interests were stronger?

6) What would happen if a Nevada court got jurisdiction of this case? How should it decide?

7) Doesn’t a law-of-the-forum approach to true conflicts encourage forum shopping?