How does the better-law approach choose between two possible laws?

In the context of conflict of laws, the better-law approach functions by evaluating which of two potentially applicable laws offers a superior solution to the specific legal problem at hand.1

Rather than relying solely on mechanical rules or state interests, this methodology tasks the court with a qualitative assessment to determine which rule provides a better outcome for the case. In practice, however, this approach often exhibits a "homeward trend," meaning courts frequently conclude that their own forum law—the lex fori—is the "better" law to apply. Consequently, while the approach is theoretically designed to identify the most effective legal solution, it frequently results in the application of the law of the forum where the case is being heard.1