[Hague-jur-commercial-law] IP&The Hague quick notes about yesterday

[Michael Sondow]

Hi, Judith.

You wrote:

> A forged contract would be substantive rather than procedural 
> fraud.

I don?t get this. Can you explain? After all, forgery is forgery. Seems to me it would be both substantive and procedural, and any other kind of category that can be cooked up.

> If the
>Seoul court found the forged contract valid, enforcement of the judgment on
>it could not be disputed on the ground of invalidity under 9(a)

How can a court, any court, find a forged contract valid? Are we dealing with a new lexicon here?

>The answer to the question what governmental and societal interests are
>served by permitting enforcement of a judgment obtained by fraud of any kind
>was "finality." 

So, forgery (and what other crimes?) are okay if they allow courts to get cases off their calendars? This opens up a whole new world of illicit activity, that devoted to perverting the use of courts. Maybe the Bar Association and its "approved law schools" can start a new curriculum: The Perversion of Justice Through Court Expediency, or How to Use Illegal Contracts For Valid Litigation.

M. Sondow