Localidad

I believe it is human nature to think something is stupid and pointless when a person does not have the necessary background to understand that something.  A different thing is going around making our ignorance a public matter and telling off people who are only trying to help.

There is a principle of international law called in Latin "locus regit actum" used basically to solve conflicts of law by most jurisdictions (including the British).  You can look further into it in the "Learn Law" website here:http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/L/LocusRegitActum.aspx.

This is the basis for the requirement that some legal documents (most frequently those that create obligations)  make reference to the place where they were signed.  It is definitely not a stupid and pointless requirement  (although perhaps there is a tendency to overuse it in some circumstances where it is really not a relevant thing or currently not relevant any longer.

An example of its use in currently irrelevant cirumstances is the blank in bank cheques to fill in the place of signature.  Some years ago, issuing a cheque in one banking jurisdiction and cashing it in another was subject to a transfer tax.  This tax was eliminated many years ago but even today, the cheques still have a blank for the place of signature.  Leaving it in blank does not cause the cheque to be invalid.

I hope that those that do not understand the requirement or those curious about it can find some assistance by visiting the link provided.

Now here we have a genuine attempt to support an action that I am looking on as stupid, and a reference to where we can look up some guidance, and a Latin phrase to make this more palatable.   

Could you then make a case for why and where it’s going to be relevant to do it, and how it can be relied on?    

I may even begin to be persuaded it’s less than stupid, and help out the ignorant who are trying to help?

If you write Locus Regit Actum in Google you will find quite a bit of information of this principle which is used to solve conflicts of law.

A conflict of laws can exist both in international legal issues as well as in domestic legal issues.  An example to try to understand conflicts of law is a Spanish national marrying a US national in Argentina. In Spanish law, personal relationships are governed by Spanish law, US law could rule that personal relationships are governed by US law and Argentinian law could say that personal relationships are governed by Argentinian law.  This may sound strange but it does happen.  If this couple then wants to get a divorce, for example, under what jurisdiction and complying with which legal system does it need to be done.

Under the legal principle "locus regit actum", the conflicts of laws would be resolved in favour of Argentinian law as that is the law of the place where the contract that requires dissolution (marriage) was executed.

This may sound like something extreme to the untrained person but it does happen all the time in all kinds of situations.  Another example could be a business buying  products manufactured in Spain from a Chinese company which ships them in a US registered transportation vehicle when the products are damaged.  Which law applies? Spanish, Chinese, US?  Under locus regit actum, the law would be US law as the products were damaged on board a US ship, the place were the damage occured.

I am not trying to say that this principle always applies because now a days it is quite normal due to globalization for contracts to state which law is applicable and under which jurisdicionts will conflicts be resolved but for example in marriage, adoption and personal issues like those, it is not normally so specified.

If anyone else needs more information,  Google it and you will find it very easily.

Brian. 

Read before you type

i did not say I was quoting MY lawyer but A lawyer practising in spain 

PS.  hoping to resolve this for Terry,  I have just asked at the national police. They said it is the law.  They were unable to qualify it better than that.  I guess we do not need to know more than that to survive here

Great post lobin, as I suggested previously it's about legal jurisdiction. A simplified method of establishing it.

Lobin.  

In the examples you make, and let’s take the first one of marriage of different nationals.   

My posts have stated that the place at which a form is submitted for action is the law in force, your comment that a dissolution of such contract is also in that very same place (of execution):   In either case I’m not sure how you have answered the question of why a person should place the information of where a form is signed, is relevant, Latin name or not. 

Your second example of contract law or civil law about damage of goods on board a ship.  If a form is filled in to claim for any damage it still wouldnt matter about the place it was signed, it may be signed in the territorial waters of north Korea a, it would still be irrelevant  

Im still unconvinced on that matter so will stick to my guns and say it’s a stupid request.  

John, your last cut and paste post attempt.    There are leaders and followers in this world, you are definitely a follower, with no real sense of reason to challenge anything that may seem stupid.  Perhaps comes from a life’s work of obedience?

Mickey,  how does a box ticking exercise, in this case placing information about where a form is signed (which may or may not be truthful) establish any form of legal information that can be verified or relied on in any future challenge?

if it’s not an accurate statement then surely it’s a stupid request whichever way you look at it. 

This message was last edited by briando55 on 04/06/2018.

Sorry, Brian.  You see, I am not trying to convince you of anything.  I feel I have explained sufficiently why the place of execution of acts that have legal repercussions could be important.  It is up to you if you want to continue believing it is not so.  Entirely up to you.

That’s fine iobin.   

Your description of the execution of acts was perfectly understandable but the debate was if a place of signing a document was relevant and I accept you misunderstood the question.  

Had someone said it can be used as a further check measure to identify a signature, a little like a secret password question to ask a person later, it may have made more sense.  But simply to put where you sign a form and try to justify it in a lawful context?    Pretty stupid, which is my point from the start. 

It wouldn’t have got nearly as complex if John had not introduced some lawyer comment to try and substantiate the reason!

i have to say towards the end of this post it reminded me of the old puzzle of aircraft travel......

If a Spanish passenger jet is flying Chinese and Dutch nationals over the French alps and it crashes on the border of France and Italy, where do you bury the survivors?

answers on a post card and don’t forget to put where you were when you signed it

There are leaders and followers in this world, you are definitely a follower, with no real sense of reason to challenge anything that may seem stupid.  Perhaps comes from a life’s work of obedience?

Woa! That's I bit over the top Brian. Argue with rationale not insults please.

Sorry if it offended you Micky, I still think it has an accurate background to the comment.   Think it was a little strong?

the chap has a history of some really out of order pm's to me and others over time.   I could have been stronger in comments.   

Anyway my rationale and a little humour is put in the response a couple of posts back and could maybe get a comment from someone?

In a final attempt to get an authoritative answer, mainly for Terry Gill the OP,  why the location must be shown when signing many official documents in Spain.

This morning having ask a couple of senior officers at a Comisaria (National Police Station) who did not know,  I spoke to the Comisario ( the police chief).   We spoke for maybe 15 minutes, during which time he tried to arrive at a justifiable answer.   Finally, he basically said that it is a requirement from long ago and probably the reason has become lost in antiquity.  He said there was no chance of a prosecution if one showed the wrong place when they signed and that it was not really required at all, which was particularly so now with the introduction of the internet which permitted  many things to be done via that medium.

Ok.    That is the best answer I could obtain.

For those who are interested, others please tune out.

Obsolete UK laws remaining on the statute books are something which the UK has in abundance despite that when many new laws when published they carrying lists of obsolete laws which are then removed from the statute book.

Searching the internet reveals many such, dare I say, apparently stupid UK laws, although there are also many myths, taxis required to carry a bale of hay for the horse, or urinating on the back offside wheel of a vehicle being permitted.

Here is one such list:

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/650388/11-bizarre-British-laws-have-not-been-repealed-illegal-to-drink-in-pub-citybaseapartments

Yes John very correctly put.  

Thanks Brian