Anticipation over several high-stakes midterm elections across the country has been thick in the air in a handful of states where tight races have gone into overtime. Results have been delayed due to a variety of factors including absentee/provisional ballot counting, technical issues, and calls for a recount.
This Essay responds to Lea Brilmayer and Dan Listwa’s criticisms of the Draft Restatement (Third) of Conflict of Laws.
A reexamination of this Restatement began in October 2012. When the Council approved the project, it decided not to launch a full revision of the Restatement Third at that time. Instead, it limited the scope of the project to three areas, with limitations.
In his Chancellor’s lecture at UCI School of Law, “Assumption of Risk and Consent in the Twenty-First Century,” Kenneth W. Simons discusses the definitions of consent and assumption of risk with illustrations referencing Harry Houdini, the infamous “Flopper” ride from Coney Island, and Sluggerrr the Kansas City Royals mascot hitting a fan with a hot dog.
Continuity and Change in the Draft Restatement (Third) of Conflict of Laws: One Step Forward and Two Steps Back?Lea Brilmayer and Daniel B. Listwa
A deep contradiction lies at the heart of the Draft Restatement (Third) of Conflict of Laws. The Draft Restatement embraces a novel theoretical framework—the “two-step” theory—that attempts to integrate the basic tenets of so-called “modern” choice of law theory into a coherent intellectual whole.
At your next board meeting, management mentions plans to launch a marketing affiliation with a well-known charity. The cause seems like a good one; your company will gain social and public relations benefits, and all sides seem to win. However, some corporations have followed this line of thinking to disaster, when the charity brought hidden legal or financial landmines, or triggered an awkward media relations debacle. As a board member, what questions should you ask before your company seeks to do good?