# kaal:claim:2029983-033

**Claim.** The authors propose a rule under which, unless a transaction is unambiguously inside the United States, the transaction is not inside the United States if the parties have expressly stated that intent; this can be harmonized with both Morrison and the existing statutory framework.

**Type.** design  **Support.** argued

**Holds when.**

- geographically ambiguous transactions only
- does not apply to transactions unequivocally inside the United States

**Source quote.**

> rule would stipulate that unless a transaction is unambiguous- ly inside the United States, the transaction does not take place inside the United States if the parties have expressly stated their intent that it does not take place inside the United States.

**From.** Wulf A. Kaal, Richard W. Painter, *Forum Competition and Choice of Law Competition in Securities Law after Morrison v. National Austral* (2012), III.B. From Geographic Location Toward Choice of Law, page 64

**Cite as.** Wulf A. Kaal, Richard W. Painter, Forum Competition and Choice of Law Competition in Securities Law after Morrison v. National Austral (2012). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2029983

**Verify.** sha256 of source PDF `fde2ff611420eb283cbb49a6b681a2ae8efa2b4603ae71480e2d91483f0295f2` at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/wulfkaal/Academic-Papers/main/papers/pdf/Kaal%20and%20Painter%20-%202012%20-%20Forum%20Competition%20and%20Choice%20of%20Law%20Competition%20in%20Securities%20Law%20after%20Morrison%20v.%20National%20Austral.pdf

**Topics.** law-and-legal-systems

**Keywords.** choice-of-law, default-rules, morrison, transaction-location, rule-design

**Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of the claim. Its sha256 is the content hash used for attestation.