Choice of Law

If the law chosen by the parties to a consumer lease is that of a jurisdiction other than a jurisdiction in which the lessee resides at the time the lease agreement becomes enforceable or within thirty days thereafter or in which the goods are to be used, the choice is not enforceable. (I.C. § 28-12-106)

"Idaho follows the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws when interpreting contractual choice-of-law provisions. Ward v. Puregro Co., 128 Idaho 366, 368–69, 913 P.2d 582, 584–85 (1996). Under the Restatement, “‘[t]he law of the state chosen by the parties to govern their contractual rights and duties will be applied if the particular issue is one which the parties could have resolved by an explicit provision in their agreement directed to that issue.’” Carroll v. MBNA Am. Bank, 148 Idaho 261, 265, 220 P.3d 1080, 1084 (2009) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 187(1) (1971)). If the issue is one that could not have been resolved by an express contract provision, courts will still apply the chosen law unless: (a) the chosen state has no substantial relationship to the parties and there is no other reasonable basis for choosing that state, or (b) applying the chosen state’s law would be contrary to a fundamental state policy of a state that (i) has a materially greater interest in that issue and (ii) would otherwise, in the absence of a choice-of-law provision, be the state of applicable law. Id. (quoting Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws § 187(2)).

In the absence of a choice-of-law provision, Idaho courts apply the Restatement’s “most significant relationship” test. Unigard Ins. Grp. v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 100 Idaho 123, 126, 594 P.2d 633, 636 (1979)"