Your contracts rarely stop at one border. We are insured to advise on commercial agreements in jurisdictions around the world - governing law, jurisdiction and enforcement thought through as one piece of work rather than three referrals.
A contract crossing borders has to answer questions a domestic agreement never asks - whose law governs it, whose courts hear a dispute, and where a judgment could actually be enforced. We deal with those questions as one piece of work, not three referrals.
Most people searching that want one thing: someone senior who can look at an agreement crossing borders and tell them where the risk actually sits. We do that work, and we explain the setup before anything else - Silva is a legal consultancy, not a law firm, and we are insured to advise on commercial contracts across jurisdictions.
For cross-border commercial work that is usually a better model. The alternative is a relay race: an English firm for the English law, a local firm in the other country, and you in the middle paying both to talk to each other. We take it as one instruction, and where a point genuinely needs a regulated lawyer in another jurisdiction - a local filing, a mandatory local rule - we say so plainly and help you brief the right person.
What we do not do is stretch past the edge of our lane and hope. Knowing where that edge sits is most of the value.
Governing law decides which country's legal rules are used to interpret a contract. Jurisdiction decides which country's courts hear a dispute about it. One is the rulebook, the other is the referee - they usually point at the same country, but they are separate choices and both belong in every cross-border contract. We cover the detail in governing law vs jurisdiction.
A jurisdiction clause names the courts which will deal with disputes under a contract. An exclusive clause commits both parties to one named court; a non-exclusive clause names a preferred forum but leaves others open. The choice affects cost, predictability and enforcement, and is worth making deliberately rather than inheriting from a template.
Yes. Silva is insured to advise on commercial agreements in jurisdictions around the world, and cross-border contracts are a core part of what we do. Where a point genuinely needs a regulated local lawyer in another country - a local filing, a local mandatory rule - we tell you plainly and help brief the right person, rather than stretching past the edge of our lane.
At minimum: an explicit governing law clause, an explicit jurisdiction clause, and an enforcement route chosen with the other side's assets in mind. Currency, language and data-transfer terms follow close behind. Leaving these to default rules means paying to argue about them after a dispute has already started.
The answer gets worked out later under default conflict-of-law rules, at the worst possible time - mid-dispute, with each side arguing for the result which suits it. In a cross-border deal this can cost serious money before anyone reaches the actual disagreement. Two sentences at signature avoid it.
Often not. Most cross-border commercial contracts turn on governing law, jurisdiction and enforcement, and those can be handled as one piece of work from here. A local regulated lawyer is genuinely needed where there is a local filing, a mandatory local rule or local court advocacy - and we tell you when that point arrives rather than after. Cross border legal advice fails most often when it arrives in two halves that do not agree.
Send us the contract, or just the shape of it - who the parties are, what it covers, where performance happens. We will come back with a plain-English view of what it needs, what we would do and what it costs, before you commit to anything.