Opinion ID: 449535
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Effectiveness of Choice of Law

Text: 41 Idaho has adopted the Restatement position on conflicts questions. Rungee, 449 P.2d at 382-83; Shasta Livestock Auction Yard, Inc. v. Bill Evans Cattle Management Corp., 375 F.Supp. 1027, 1031-32 (D.Idaho 1974). We rely on the Restatement as the best predictor of Idaho's treatment of this issue. 42 Under Section 187 of the Restatement, if the court is satisfied that the parties have chosen the law to be applied, the chosen law will be applied if: 43 (1) ... the particular issue is one which the parties could have resolved by an explicit provision in their agreement directed to that issue. 44 Rest.2d Sec. 187(1). Under Idaho law, the parties could not restrict the statutory limitations period by explicit agreement. Idaho Code Sec. 29-110; Sunshine Mining, 684 P.2d at 1005. 45 Even though the issue is one that the parties could not have resolved by explicit agreement, the chosen law will be applied unless either 46 (a) the chosen state has no substantial relationship to the parties or the transaction and there is no other reasonable basis for the parties' choice, or 47 (b) [the chosen state's law is] contrary to a fundamental policy of a state which has a materially greater interest ... and which, under the rule of Sec. 188, would be the state of the applicable law in the absence of an effective choice... 48 Rest.2d Sec. 187(2). The choice of Illinois law violates both standards. 49 Illinois has no substantial relationship to the parties or the transaction. That it was the place of contracting is not enough when there was no other relationship to the transaction. Rest.2d Sec. 187 comment f. There was no other reasonable basis for the choice. No insured property was located there and neither party was principally located there. Other states with a more significant relationship to the transaction could have been chosen to achieve uniformity of contract interpretation. 50 It is for the forum to decide whether the otherwise applicable state law expresses a fundamental policy and whether that state has a materially greater interest in the particular issue. Id. comment g. We have already concluded that the law of Idaho is the otherwise applicable law. 51 Idaho has expressed a fundamental policy by requiring strict adherence to its statutory limitations period. See Idaho Code Sec. 29-110 (voiding contractual deviation). The minimal nature of the contact with Illinois refutes the argument that its law should be recognized. Rest.2d Sec. 187 comment g. Idaho has a materially greater interest in the statute of limitation as the forum state within which the damaged property was located. 52 Even if an Idaho court would allow reformation, it would not recognize the parties' choice of Illinois law on the statute of limitation issue.