Source: https://www.oncontracts.com/cheat-sheets/choice-of-law-crib-sheet/?share=email
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 09:58:40+00:00

Document:
Author’s note: Choosing the law that will govern a contract can sometimes be important. This page (under construction) points out some things in the laws of various states that may be of interest to contract negotiators. See the last few headings for state-by-state compilations of information about specific topics such as statutes of limitation and limitations of liability. Suggestions are welcome – please email me at dc@toedt.com.
Punitive damages restrictions: By statute, Alabama law limits punitive damages — see Ala. Code §§ 6-11-20 and 6-11-21.
Limitation-of-negligence-liability clauses are invalid: Alaska’s supreme court has held that contract clauses purporting to exculpate a party from liability for its own negligence are invalid under the state’s anti-indemnity statute, AS 45.45.900. See City of Dillingham v. CH2M Hill Northwest, Inc., 873 P.2d 1271 (Alaska 1994), discussed in Richard F. Paciaroni and Janet M. Serafin, Anti-Indemnity Statutes: A Threat to Limitation of Liability Clauses? (Dec. 1, 2007).
Limitation of liability: According to researchers, a 1990 Arkansas Supreme Court case held that, if a buyer’s limited remedy fails of its essential purpose, then consequential damages become recoverable. See Great Dane Trailer Sales, Inc. v. Malvern Pulpwood, Inc., 785 S.W.2d 13, 17 18 (Ark. 1990) (not readily available online), cited here (see footnote 247) and here.
See the separate California cheat-sheet page.
Resale price maintenance (“vertical price fixing”): See the discussion below.
Punitive-damages restrictions: A Florida statute restricts punitive damages — see Fla. Stat. § 768.73.
Non-competition covenants: A Florida statute significantly stacks the deck in favor of employers and other parties benefiting from non-competition covenants. See Fla. Stat. § 542.335.
The Court of Appeals of New York summarized the Florida statute as evidencing “Florida’s nearly-exclusive focus on the employer’s interests, prohibition against narrowly construing restrictive covenants, and refusal to consider the harm to the employee – in contrast with New York’s requirements that courts strictly construe restrictive covenants and balance the interests of the employer, employee and general public ….” Brown & Brown, Inc. v. Johnson, No. 92, slip op. at 7 (N.Y. June 11, 2015) (affirming, in pertinent part, judgment that choice-of-law clause specifying Florida law in employment agreement was unenforceable in respect to non-solicitation clause).
—Submitted by Chris Lemens, who didn’t provide a link to more information about him. The Weirich & Hart article cites O.C.GA. 10-1-767(b)(1) (2000) and several Georgia appellate cases that were not found on-line: Wright v. Power Indus. Consultants, Inc., 234 Ga. App. 833, 837, 508 S.E.2d 191, 195 (1998) (nondisclosure clause with no time limit is unenforceable for non-trade-secret information), rev’d on other grounds by Advance Tech. Consultants, Inc. v. Roadtrac, LLC, 250 Ga. App. 317, 551 S.E.2d 735 (2001); Allen v. Hub Cap Heaven, 225 Ga. App. 533, 539, 484 S.E.2d 259, 265 (1997) (same). The article also cites three cases holding that two-year nondisclosure agreements were enforceable: Lee v. Envtl. Pest & Termite Control, Inc., 271 Ga. 371, 374, 516 S.E.2d 76,78-79 (1999); Physician Specialists in Anesthesia, P.C. v. MacNeill, 246 Ga. App. 398, 408, 539 S.E.2d 216,225 (2000); Griffin, 215 Ga. App. at 63, 449 S.E.2d at 860.
Jury-trial waivers in contracts are unenforceable: See Bank South, N.A. v. Howard, 264 Ga. 339, 444 S.E.2d 799 (1994) (affirming reversal of trial court’s striking of jury demand).
Punitive-damages restrictions: See 735 ILCS 5/2?1115.05: “The amount of punitive damages that may be awarded for a claim in any civil action subject to this Section shall not exceed 3 times the amount awarded to the claimant for the economic damages on which such claim is based.” The statute also imposes a clear-and-convincing-evidence proof requirement.
Background: A contract drafter might try to get the other side to agree to a provision stating that the other side is not relying on any representation by the drafter’s client, apart from any that are made in the contract itself or its attachments or documents incorporated by reference. The idea is to try to preclude later claims by the other side that the drafter’s client fraudulently induced the other side into entering into the agreement. (This could have the effect of negating a limitation of liability provision, as HP’s EDS unit found out to its sorrow.) Courts have been known to give effect to no-reliance clauses, especially when the parties are sophisticated (but often not in cases of intentional fraudulent concealment). See, e.g., One Communications Corp. v. JP Morgan SBIC LLC, Nos. 09-1815-cv, 10-0424-cv, slip op. at 4-5 (2d Cir. June 17, 2010) (affirming summary judgment dismissing misrepresentation claim); see also, e.g., Brian S. Fraser and Tamala E. Newbold, Big Boy Update: Recent New York Case Demonstrates Limits of Big Boy Provisions Where Affirmative Acts of Concealment Are Alleged (Sept. 24, 2010, accessed Oct. 21, 2010). Massachusetts, though, apparently will not allow such contractual disclaimers.
Limitation-of-negligence-liability clauses are invalid: According to this article, in 2006 a federal district court held that a contract clause that limited a party’s liability for negligence to $100,000 was invalid under Nebraska’s anti-indemnity statute. See Richard F. Paciaroni and Janet M. Serafin, Anti-Indemnity Statutes: A Threat to Limitation of Liability Clauses? (Dec. 1, 2007), discussing Omaha Cold Storage Terminals, Inc. v. The Hartford Ins. Co., No. 8:03CV445, 2006 WL 695456 (D. Neb. Mar. 17, 2006).
Fee-shifting: New Jersey Court Rule 4:58 is a fee-shifting provision, under which a claimant that refuses a settlement offer, but then does not achieve a more-favorable result at trial, must pay the offeror’s post-offer attorneys’ fees and expenses. See this article for more details.
See the separate New York cheat-sheet page.
Jury-trial waivers in contracts are unenforceable: See N.C. Gen. Stat. 22B-10.
Attorneys’ fees clauses: Even without an attorneys -fees clause, a party that successfully sues to enforce its rights under an oral or written contract is entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys fees, in addition to the amount of the claim and costs. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 38.001(8).
The Texas Supreme Court has held [link] that this right of recovery extends to a party suing for breach of warranty, not just breach of contract.
On the other hand, this right of recovery apparently does not include a party that successfully defends against a breach-of-contract suit; for that, the contract would have to include a prevailing-party attorneys-fees clause.
Limitation periods: Under Section 16.070 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, a contractual statute of limitations shorter than two years is void. The only exception, under subdivision (b), is in connection with the sale of a business entity for an aggregate value of not less than $500,000.
16 provided in sections 3 through 9 of this act.
The Nolo.com Web site has what appears to be a useful state-by-state chart of limitation periods for various types of causes of action, with citations to specific statutory provisions.
Thanks to IACCM member Robin Foster for pointing out a 2006 Pillsbury Winthrop memo (an 83-page PDF) that contains a brief, state-by-state summary of laws concerning limitation of liability.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 768
 § 542
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.