Page 57 - วารสารกฎหมาย ศาลอุทธรณ์คดีชํานัญพิเศษ

ฉบับพิเศษ ประจำ�ปี 2564

As for automobiles, the Supreme Court settled on a new formulation with
the following dual categorization based on different statuses of cars:

“cars can be divided into cars which are placed in use and by their nature, can

move around for a considerable scope, and cars which are not in such a state”.
[underlined by the author]

“The article 10, para.2 means that the applicable law to the acquisition of title
to a car is the law of the place of its primary use in cases where the car is in
a state ready for use, and in cases where it is not ready for use, unless there are
special circumstances such as where it is in the process of transportation to

another country, the law of the place where it physically exists”. [underlined by
the author]

From this reasoning, the formulation adopted by the Supreme Court in terms of
the choice-of-law rule regarding the property of a car was deduced and restated at
the conclusive statement of the Court’s judgment as the following “summary:”

“The applicable law on the acquisition of title to a car is the law of the place

of its primary use in cases where the car is in a state ready for use, and in cases
where it is not ready for use, unless there are special circumstances such as
where it is in the process of transportation to another country, the law of

the place where it physically exists applies”. [underlined by the author]

Problems with the Supreme Court’s formulation
As for this formulation, from the technical and practical viewpoint, there are

many unclear points. One crucial problem is the key concept of “the place of its
10
[the car’s] primary use.” What this means and how it can be identified were not clearly
explained by the Supreme Court. Some think it is the place where the registration has

already been filed. What of a case in which there are simultaneously different
11

10 As for the detailed analysis of the judgment, see HARATA (supra note*).
11 For instance, DOGAUCHI, Case Note, 271 Hogaku Kyoshitsu (2003) 129; HAYAKAWA, Case Note,
Heisei 14 Nendo Juyo Hanrei Kaisetsu (2003) 276-77. See HARATA (supra note*) p.391.

55