Abstract

Recent revisions to Articles 9 and 1 of the Uniform Commercial Code have proposed new intangible secured financing choice of law rules. These choices of law rules contain rules that represent all three major schools of thought in the field of conflicts of laws: multilateralism, substantivism and unilateralism. This thesis examines the new rules by analysing them in the context of the strengths and weakness of these schools of thought and in light of the requirements of a secured financing system. On the whole the strong mulitlateralist focus of the majority of the rules provides a solid basis for the UCC's choice of law provisions. The elimination of the rule that was based on a unilateralist basis is a logical improvement. However, the inclusion of a rule, §9-307, with a substantivist basis introduces an element of uncertainty into the system and should be removed.