3.5 Application of Renvoi

The arguments' war (the exam's essay): FOR (the consistency (the same outcome in both forums — the foreign court's own view respected); the justice's harmony) — AGAINST (the ping- pong's absurdity (the endless referral); the forum's law-by-the-back-door (the remission's self- preference); the unpredictability). The Nepali face: no renvoi doctrine in the statute (the courts' craft undeveloped — the functional note: the foreign law as the domestic law's ordinary application (the renvoi's implicit rejection)). The application's craft: the renvoi only where the conflict rule refers to "the law" of a system whose conflict rules differ — the common-law's acceptance (the English remission), the civil-law's rejection — the map. Exam Focus Long questions: (i) The choice-of-law methodology (the steps — the banker); (ii) The renvoi doctrine (the kinds + the arguments' war). Short questions: the connecting factor; the characterization's lex fori rule; remission vs transmission. Trick areas: (i) The court applies ITS OWN conflict rules (the lex fori's conflicts — the "foreign conflict rules first" error); (ii) REMISSION = back to the forum; TRANSMISSION = on to the third law — the pair's division; (iii) The characterization governs the ISSUE (not the case — each issue characterised separately); (iv) The renvoi's majority rule: the foreign DOMESTIC law (the renvoi rejected).