Conflict of Laws and the Restatement Second

Conflict of laws is in a state of flux. This is particularly true of that most difficult area of the subject, which is frequently referred to as choice of law. Many fundamental rules in this area, that once were generally accepted, have been proved wrong by recent experience.' Some of the remaining rules are being subjected to increasing criticism and doubt. More disconcerting is the fact that wide differences presently exist with respect to underlying objectives and values. The suggestion has even been made that all choice-of-law rules should be abandoned.2 This surely is a time for soul-searching and re-evaluation. Conflict of laws was one of the first subjects to which the American Law Institute gave its attention. Work on the original Restatement was commenced in I923. At this time the teachings of Professor Joseph H. Beale, the Reporter, were at their heyday. The vested rights theory, of which he was the principal exponent, was widely accepted, and it was generally believed that the entire field could be covered by' a relatively small number of simple rules, as that the validity of a contract is governed by the law of the place of contracting and that rights and liabilities in tort are determined by the law of the place of injury.3 Little wonder as a consequence that the field was deemed ripe for restatement. The situation had changed by the time the original Restatement was published in final form in I934. The vested rights theory, the foundation on which the Restatement was constructed, was beginning to come under devastating attack from Professor Walter Wheeler Cook4 and others.5 This increasing turmoil and doubt had some effect upon the Restatement itself. Judge Goodrich once told the writer that the reason why the original comments are so terse and laconic is that the Advisers frequently disagreed with the reasons advanced by Professor Beale for his rules although they did not object to the rules themselves. As a result, proposed comments prepared by Professor Beale stating his reasons for the rules were fre-