Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Analysis: The Bank of India, the plaintiff, argues that either Indian or Hong Kong
law should apply based on the inferred nature of the contract. The Gobindrams, the
defendants, argue that Japanese law should be used for the guarantee contract,
based on the closest and most real connection. Moreover, Japanese law protects
them from liability because the Bank of India agreed to release them as guarantors.
Conclusion: The proper law of the contract of guarantee has to be Japanese law,
and Japanese law already excused the Gobindrams from liability.
Case 3-8: Jorge Luis Machuca Gonzalez et al. v. Chrysler Corporation et al.
Issue: