Source: http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/960820u1.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 04:24:01+00:00

Document:
CASE NAME: Attorneys Trust and CM Magnetics Corporation v. Videotape Computer Products, Inc. and Videotape Products, Inc.
"[Seller's] final attempt to avoid the district court's judgment consists of its assertion that the district court erred because it should have applied the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. That would have led to the application of the law of Taiwan to this case, says [seller]. However, this claim is too little too late. Assuming that Taiwan is a party to the Convention, `[a] party who intends to raise an issue concerning the law of a foreign country shall give notice by pleadings or other reasonable written notice.' Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1. The failure to raise the issue results in application of the law of the forum, here California. ["Under California's choice of law rules, a California court `will apply its own rule of decision unless a party litigant timely invokes the law of a foreign state.' Hurtado v. Superior Court, 11 Cal. 3d 574, 581, 522 P.2d 666, 670, 114 Cal. Rptr. 106, 110 (1974)."] See Interpool Ltd. v. Char Yigh Marine (Panama) S.A., 890 F.2d 1453, 1458 (9th Cir. 1989); Seattle Totems Hockey Club, Inc. v. National Hockey League, 783 F.2d 1347, 1355 n. 9 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 932, 107 S. Ct. 405, 93 L. Ed. 2d 357 (1986); Montana Power Co. v. Public Util. Dist. No. 2, 587 F.2d 1019, 1022, n.1 (9th Cir. 1978); Commercial Ins. Co. v. Pacific-Peru Constr. Corp., 558 F.2d 948, 952 (9th Cir. 1977). The parties cited only California law to the district court. Indeed, they cite only California law to us. The district court did not err."
Original language (English): There are two parts to this decision: Citations to Part (i) of the decision are: 93 F.3d 593; 1996 U.S. App. Lexis 20800; 96 Cal. Daily Op. Service 6178; 96 Daily Journal DAR 10118. The citation to Part (ii) of the decision is: 1996 U.S. App. Lexis 21792; 1996 WL 473755 (9th Cir. (Cal.)). The editorial remarks presented above contain an excerpt from Part (ii) of the decision. The text of part (i) of the decision is available on the Internet courtesy of Villanova Law School (website address: "http://www.vcilp.org/Fed-Ct/Circuit/9th/opinions/9555410.htm".
The sole published source of Part (ii) of the decision is Lexis, cited above.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.