Cherry, Bekaert & Holland v. Brown

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “the contractual choice of North Carolina law c[ould not] be given effect and that Alabama law will govern th[e] agreement”
• holding that “parties normally are allowed to choose another state’s laws to govern an agreement”
• holding that courts will not give effect to a party’s choice of law if that law “would be contrary to Alabama policy”
• stating that, in Alabama, contracts are “governed by the laws of the state where it is made”
• noting that fundamental policies may be embodied by laws that make certain “kinds of contracts illegal or which [are] designed to protect a person against the oppressive use of superior bargaining power”
• stating that, while the parties normally are allowed to choose what law they wish to apply to their agreement, Alabama law will govern the agreement if the parties' choice would run contrary to the public policy of Alabama

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).