A more recent version of these Choice Of Law (Contract) Cases notes – written by Oxford students – is available here.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Conflict of Laws Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
ROME I REGULATION Article 3 Iran Continental Shelf Oil Company 
Both parties concluded contract between them on basis of their own standard terms and conditions, each of which contained a different choice of law provision (one in favour of Iran, the other Texas). Held:
Was no express choice of law. This because neither party had accepted the other party's terms
Compangie Tunisienne de Navigation 
Common law case. Contract stated to be governed by law of flag of ship. At time contract concluded, was envisaged that ships used would be French. However due to unforeseen war, different ships had to be used. Held:
Parties had made express choice of French governing law. This because parties had envisaged French law would be governing law at time of conclusion (as they had expected carrier to be French)
Court then considered what implied choice of law would have been had there been no express choice of law. Contract also contained arbitration clause in favour of England. Held:
1. Arbitration clause in favour of England would usually imply English choice of law.
2. However on facts French law was proper law of contract
3. This because contract was most closely connected with France Implied Choice of Law Egon Oldendorff v Liberia Corp 
Common law case .German company sought to serve process on Japanese company on grounds that contract between them was impliedly governed by English law. Contract had no connections with England save for arbitration clause in favour of England. Held:
C could serve out of the jurisdiction. Idea that governing law is something other than English law despite fact that parties chose England as seat of arbitration is "unconvincing" Test under Convention Article 3 is almost identical to that under common law.
1. If Art 3involves a change in emphasis, is a small one
Marubeni Hong Kong and South China 
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Conflict of Laws Notes.