REST 2d CONFL s 6
 Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws s 6 (1969 Main Vol.)
Restatement of the Law Second Conflict of Laws 2d Chapter 1. Introduction Copyright (c) 1971 The American Law Institute
s 6. CHOICE­OF­LAW PRINCIPLES TEXT
(1) A court, subject to constitutional restrictions, will follow a statutory directive of its own state on choice of law.
(2) When there is no such directive, the factors relevant to the choice of the applicable rule of law include
(a) the needs of the interstate and international systems,
(b) the relevant policies of the forum,
(c) the relevant policies of other interested states and the relative interests of those states in the determination of the particular issue,
(d) the protection of justified expectations,
(e) the basic policies underlying the particular field of law,
(f) certainty, predictability and uniformity of result, and
(g) ease in the determination and application of the law to be applied.

COMMENTS
Comment on Subsection (1):
a. Statutes directed to choice of law. A court, subject to constitutional limitations, must follow the directions of its legislature. The court must apply a local statutory provision directed to choice of law provided that it would be constitutional to do so. An example of a statute directed to choice of law is the Uniform Commercial Code which provides in certain instances for the application of the law chosen by the parties (s 1­105(1)) and in other instances for the application of the law of a particular state (ss 2­402, 4­ 102, 6­102, 8­106, 9­103). Another example is the Model Execution of Wills Act which provides that a written will subscribed by the testator shall be valid as to matters of form if it complies with the local requirements of any one of a number of enumerated states. Statutes that are expressly directed to choice of law, that is to say, statutes which provide for the application of the local law of one state, rather than the local law of another state, are comparatively few in number. b. Intended range of application of statute. A court will rarely find that a question of choice of law is explicitly covered by statute. That is to say, a court will rarely be directed by statute to apply the local law of one state, rather than the local law of another state, in the decision of a particular issue. On the other hand, the court will constantly be faced with the question whether the issue before it falls within the intended range of application of a particular statute. The court should give a local statute the range of application intended by the legislature when these intentions can be ascertained and can constitutionally be given effect. If the legislature intended that the statute should be applied to the out­of­state facts involved, the court should so apply it unless constitutional considerations forbid. On the other hand, if the legislature intended that the statute should be applied only to acts taking place within the state, the statute should not be given a wider range of application. Sometimes a statute's intended range of application will be apparent on its face, as when it expressly applies to all citizens of a state including those who are living abroad. When the statute is silent as to its range of application, the intentions of the legislature on the subject can sometimes be ascertained by a process of interpretation and construction. Provided that it is constitutional to do so, the court will apply a local statute in the manner intended by the legislature even when the local law of another state would be applicable under usual choice­of­law principles.
COMMENTS
Comment on Subsection (2):
c. Rationale. Legislatures usually legislate, and courts usually adjudicate, only with the local situation in mind. They rarely give thought to the extent to which the laws they enact, and the common law rules they enunciate, should apply to out­of­state facts. When there are no adequate directives in the statute or in the case law, the court will take account of the factors listed in this Subsection in determining the state whose local law will be applied to determine the issue at hand. It is not suggested that this list of factors is exclusive. Undoubtedly, a court will on occasion give consideration to other factors in deciding a question of choice of law. Also it is not suggested that the factors mentioned are listed in the order of their relative importance. Varying weight will be given to a particular factor, or to a group of factors, in different areas of choice of law. So, for example, the policy in favor of effectuating the relevant policies of the state of dominant interest is given predominant weight in the rule that transfers of interests in land are governed by the law that would be applied by the courts of the situs (see ss 223­243). On the other hand, the policies in favor of protecting the justified expectations of the parties and of effectuating the basic policy underlying the particular field of law come to the fore in the rule that, subject to certain limitations, the parties can choose the law to govern their contract (see s 187) and in the rules which provide, subject to certain limitations, for the application of a law which will uphold the validity of a trust of movables (see ss 269­270) or the validity of a contract against the charge of commercial usury (see s 203). Similarly, the policy favoring uniformity of result comes to the fore in the rule that succession to interests in movables is governed by the law that would be applied by the courts of the state where the decedent was domiciled at the time of his death (see ss 260 and 263). At least some of the factors mentioned in this Subsection will point in different directions in all but the simplest case. Hence any rule of choice of law, like any other common law rule, represents an accommodation of conflicting values.

Those chapters in the Restatement of this Subject which are concerned with choice of law state the rules which the courts have evolved in accommodation of the factors listed in this Subsection. In certain areas, as in parts of Property (Chapter 9), such rules are sufficiently precise to permit them to be applied in the decision of a case without explicit reference to the factors which underlie them. In other areas, such as in Wrongs (Chapter 7) and Contracts (Chapter 8), the difficulties and complexities involved have as yet prevented the courts from formulating a precise rule, or series of rules, which provide a satisfactory accommodation of the underlying factors in all of the situations which may arise. All that can presently be done in these areas is to state a general principle, such as application of the local law "of the state of most significant relationship", which provides some clue to the correct approach but does not furnish precise answers. In these areas, the courts must look in each case to the underlying factors themselves in order to arrive at a decision which will best accommodate them. Statement of precise rules in many areas of choice of law is made even more difficult by the great variety of situations and of issues, by the fact that many of these situations and issues have not been thoroughly explored by the courts, by the generality of statement frequently used by the courts in their opinions, and by the new grounds of decision stated in many of the more recent opinions.

The Comments which follow provide brief discussion of the factors underlying choice of law which are mentioned in this Subsection. d. Needs of the interstate and international systems. Probably the most important function of choice­of­law rules is to make the interstate and international systems work well. Choice­of­law rules, among other things, should seek to further harmonious relations between states and to facilitate commercial intercourse between them. In formulating rules of choice of law, a state should have regard for the needs and policies of other states and of the community of states. Rules of choice of law formulated with regard for such needs and policies are likely to commend themselves to other states and to be adopted by these states. Adoption of the same choice­of­law rules by many states will further the needs of the interstate and international systems and likewise the values of certainty, predictability and uniformity of result. e. Relevant policies of the state of the forum. Two situations should be distinguished. One is where the state of the forum has no interest in the case apart from the fact that it is the place of the trial of the action. Here the only relevant policies of the state of the forum will be embodied in its rules relating to trial administration (see Chapter 6). The second situation is where the state of the forum has an interest in the case apart from the fact that it is the place of trial. In this latter situation, relevant policies of the state of the forum may be embodied in rules that do not relate to trial administration. The problem dealt with in this Comment arises in the common situation where a statute or common law rule of the forum was formulated solely with the intrastate situation in mind or, at least, where there is no evidence to suggest that the statute or rule was intended to have extraterritorial application. If the legislature or court (in the case of a common law rule) did have intentions with respect to the range of application of a statute or common law rule and these intentions can be ascertained, the rule of Subsection (1) is applicable. If not, the court will interpret the statute or rule in the light of the factors stated in Subsection (2). Every rule of law, whether embodied in a statute or in a common law rule, was designed to achieve one or more purposes. A court should have regard for these purposes in determining whether to apply its own rule or the rule of another state in the decision of a particular issue. If the purposes sought to be achieved by a local statute or common law rule would be furthered by its application to out­of­ state facts, this is a weighty reason why such application should be made. On the other hand, the court is under no compulsion to apply the statute or rule to such out­of­state facts since the originating legislature or court had no ascertainable intentions on the subject. The court must decide for itself whether the purposes sought to be achieved by a local statute or rule should be furthered at the expense of the other choice­of­law factors mentioned in this Subsection. f. Relevant policies of other interested states. In determining a question of choice of law, the forum should give consideration not only to its own relevant policies (see Comment e) but also to the relevant policies of all other interested states. The forum should seek to reach a result that will achieve the best possible accommodation of these policies. The forum should also appraise the relative interests of the states involved in the determination of the particular issue. In general, it is fitting that the state whose interests are most deeply affected should have its local law applied. Which is the state of dominant interest may depend upon the issue involved. So if a husband injures his wife in a state other than that of their domicil, it may be that the state of conduct and injury has the dominant interest in determining whether the husband's conduct was tortious or whether the wife was guilty of contributory negligence (see s 146). On the other hand, the state of the spouses' domicil is the state of dominant interest when it comes to the question whether the husband should be held immune from tort liability to his wife (see s 169). The content of the relevant local law rule of a state may be significant in determining whether this state is the state with the dominant interest. So, for example, application of a state's statute or common law rule which would absolve the defendant from liability could hardly be justified on the basis of this state's interest in the welfare of the injured plaintiff. g. Protection of justified expectations. This is an important value in all fields of the law, including choice of law. Generally speaking, it would be unfair and improper to hold a person liable under the local law of one state when he had justifiably molded his conduct to conform to the requirements of another state. Also, it is in part because of this factor that the parties are free within broad limits to choose the law to govern the validity of their contract (see s 187) and that the courts seek to apply a law that will sustain the validity of a trust of movables (see ss 269­270). There are occasions, particularly in the area of negligence, when the parties act without giving thought to the legal consequences of their conduct or to the law that may be applied. In such situations, the parties have no justified expectations to protect, and this factor can play no part in the decision of a choice­of­law question. h. Basic policies underlying particular field of law. This factor is of particular importance in situations where the policies of the interested states are largely the same but where there are nevertheless minor differences between their relevant local law rules. In such instances, there is good reason for the court to apply the local law of that state which will best achieve the basic policy, or policies, underlying the particular field of law involved. This factor explains in large part why the courts seek to apply a law that will sustain the validity of a contract against the charge of commercial usury (s 203) or the validity of a trust of movables against the charge that it violates the Rule Against Perpetuities (ss 269­270). i. Predictability and uniformity of result. These are important values in all areas of the law. To the extent that they are attained in choice of law, forum shopping will be discouraged. These values can, however, be purchased at too great a price. In a rapidly developing area, such as choice of law, it is often more important that good rules be developed than that predictability and uniformity of result should be assured through continued adherence to existing rules. Predictability and uniformity of result are of particular importance in areas where the parties are likely to give advance thought to the legal consequences of their transactions. It is partly on account of these factors that the parties are permitted within broad limits to choose the law that will determine the validity and effect of their contract (see s 187) and that the law that would be applied by the courts of the state of the situs is applied to determine the validity of transfers of interests in land (see s 223). Uniformity of result is also important when the transfer of an aggregate of movables, situated in two or more states, is involved. Partly for this reason, the law that would be applied by the courts of the state of a decedent's domicil at death is applied to determine the validity of his will in so far as it concerns movables (see s 263) and the distribution of his movables in the event of intestacy (see s 260). j. Ease in the determination and application of the law to be applied. Ideally, choice­of­law rules should be simple and easy to apply. This policy should not be overemphasized, since it is obviously of greater importance that choice­of­law rules lead to desirable results. The policy does, however, provide a goal for which to strive. k. Reciprocity. In formulating common law rules of choice of law, the courts are rarely guided by considerations of reciprocity. Private parties, it is felt, should not be made to suffer for the fact that the courts of the state from which they come give insufficient consideration to the interests of the state of the forum. It is also felt that satisfactory development of choice­of­ law rules can best be attained if each court gives fair consideration to the interests of other states without regard to the question whether the courts of one or more of these other states would do the same. As to whether reciprocity is a condition to the recognition and enforcement of a judgment of a foreign nation, see s 98, Comment e. States sometimes incorporate a principle of reciprocity into statutes and treaties. They may do so in order to induce other states to take certain action favorable to their interests or to the interests of their citizens. So, as stated in s 89, Comment b, many States of the United States have enacted statutes which provide that a suit by a sister State for the recovery of taxes will be entertained in the local courts if the courts of the sister State would entertain a similar suit by the State of the forum. Similarly, by way of further example, some States of the United States provide by statute that an alien cannot inherit local assets unless their citizens in turn would be permitted to inherit in the state of the alien's nationality. A principle of reciprocity is also sometimes employed in statutes to permit reciprocating states to obtain by cooperative efforts what a single state could not obtain through the force of its own law. See, e.g., Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act; Uniform (Reciprocal) Act to Secure Attendance of Witnesses from Without a State in Criminal Proceedings; Interpleader Compact Law.