READ INSTRUCTIONS PLEASE. Honest Only..?
My paper should be a minimum of 21 pages.I need a good summary paper beside the work.Please use Microsoft Word. Please use 12-point Times New Roman as your font for all type in your text (8 point for footnotes).Please double space pages with 1-inch margins. Indent the first line of each paragraph using a tab, not the space bar. Please do not insert an extra line of space between each paragraph. (Footnotes should be in “Blue Book“ format and do not count toward your overall word count)((((((important))))))EASY EASY EASY WORDS PLEASE. English is my second language :)NO COPY AND PASTE :)NO PLAGIARISM-PLEASE :)Topic: Conflict of tort laws international.Outline:1. Introduction. International law- rules and regulations governing interactions between statesØ . Choice of rules for Tort is towards selecting the lex cause to be able to find out the nature and scope of judicial remedy to claim damages.Ø . Resolving a tort case on more than one jurisdiction has not been easyØ Case: Need for Reform on both sides of the Tasman.Ø Purpose· To discuss the Australian court latest methods to solve a tort case· To find out a way forward for Australian and New Zealand courts in the area2. Discussion/ BodyØ Reference on North American jurisprudence in the areaØ Apply law of place of wrong as the choice of law rule3. Discuss the Philips v Eyre approachØ In order to bring an action in one country for a wrong done abroad, the wrong must be of a character that it would make it actionable if committed in the country where the action is brought.4. Discuss the law of forumØ It should recognize the action for it to proceed in a jurisdiction5. Flexibility- other approachesØ Proper law of the TortØ Interest analysis6. ConclusionØ Law of place of wrong is only law to applicable in torts in relation to international torts.Ø High court of Australia rejected double action ability. Ø New Zealand still use law of double action ability but should too reject the approach and adopt the law of place of wrong.Ø Law of forum is not required to provide recovery of any matter as a start up in jurisdiction.Ø Australian High court should adopt a flexible exception.