Page 79 - วารสารกฎหมาย ศาลอุทธรณ์คดีชํานัญพิเศษ

ฉบับพิเศษ ประจำ�ปี 2564

stable transaction, which leads to support for non-causality in the substantive law, and

also for the principle of lex loci rei sitae in the conflict-of-laws. In such another kind
of transaction, the confirmation of the legal title of the seller and the good faith between

the parties to the transaction due to verification of legal title would be more crucial than
the material object itself or its physical existence. Certain consecutive transactions
would be connected on the basis of connected and accumulated good faith, and

the causal relation between the transfer of ownership and the obligation relation of
the transactions would be recognized, due to and with respect for the good faith relation.

To this kind of transaction based on causal good faith, the adoption of the exclusive
rule of the current lex loci rei sitae is destructive, cutting off individually the connected
and accumulated causal good faith relations.

In the Supreme Court’s judgment, the adoption of the criterion of the place of
primary use, separated from the place of actual existence, could have led to attention

being paid to such a causal relationship of international commerce. Nevertheless, it is
difficult to confirm that the Supreme Court dealt with any serious and detailed analysis
focused on the different characteristics of the transaction. Evidence of concern regarding

the issue of how to deal with this different kind of transaction based on causal good
faith is not easy to find in the Supreme Court’s judgment.

Solutions other than lex loci rei sitae in P.I.L. history
Historically speaking, the application of the principle of lex loci rei sitae to

movable property in general was not a common or universal phenomenon, but a relatively
new trend. 42

Earlier, particularly in England, France, Italy, etc., another idea had been broadly
adopted, according to which the lex loci rei sitae principle generally applied in

an absolute manner only to immovable. As for movables, however, the transfer of property
should in principle be regulated by the law of the domicile of the transferor owner.
43

42 See HARATA (supra note*) 344-365, 399.
th
43 Such an idea was prominent until the first half of the 19 century, at least in academia. For instance, see
J. STORY, Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws, 2 ed. (1841) 552-553; FOELIX, Traité du droit international
nd
privé, 2 ed. (1847); ROCCO, Dell’uso e autorità delle leggi del regno delle due Sicilie (1837) p.125-26, 137, 139.
nd

77