Questions on the 2nd Restatement Approach
1) How does the 2nd Restatement resolve true conflicts?
2) Is the 2nd Restatement approach really an interest analysis approach
at all? Where is the method for identifying false conflicts?
Phillips v General Motors
1) Does the 2nd Restatement presumption of the law of the place of
injury really play a role in Phillips?
2) Does any section 6 factor other than state interest play any role in
the court's decision?
3) Does the court underestimate Kansas's interest in its law applying?
4) How does the court use North Carolina's choice-of-law rules to
determine whether North Carolina law might apply? Is this renvoi? Why
didn't the court look to the choice of law rules of the other relevant
5) Is it true, as the court argues, that the public policy exception
does not exist under the Second Restatement's interest analysis
Bros Homes v Walker Adj Bureau
1) How would this case be resolved under the 1st Restatement?
2) Is there any reason to believe, as the Second Restatement claims,
that the presumptive law for contracts to perform services should be
the law of the place of the performance?
3) How does one know what weight to give each of the section 6
criteria? The lower court in Woods looked to 6(e) ("the basic policies
underlying the particular field of law") to argue that Colorado law
applied. The state supreme court looked to 6(c) ("the relevant policies
of other interested states and the relative interests of those states
in the determination of the particular issue") to argue that New Mexico
law applied. How do we know who was right?