|
P0854 In an action brought by the third party beneficiary of a contract, the facts that the plaintiff resided in New York and that contractual payments were to be made in New York justified enforcement of a contractual choice-of-law provision selecting New York law; since California permits parties to agree to modify periods of limitations on actions arising from their contracts and permits them to agree regarding liability for attorney fees incurred in such actions, New York's shorter period of limitations and its prohibition of an award of attorney fees that would have been recoverable under California law do not violate California's policy.CitationABF CAPITAL v BERGLASS (Choice of Law) 130 CA4 825 [See: Nedlloyd v Superior Court 3 C4 459, T/AT 11/92]
|
|
