Salut les Madz, je suis désolé de solliciter votre aide, mais je viens de faire ma présentation de thème en anglais, et je me demande si à tout hasard je n'ai pas fait quelques fautes. Je vous mets le texte ci-dessous si jamais certaines qui passent par là repèrent des fautes 
:
In 1974, while Robert Hague was on board his motorcycle with his son as a passenger, a car struck the motorcycle, then causing the death of Robert Hague. The accident took place at Winconsin, near the border with Minnessota. All agents of the case are citizens of Winconsin, however, Robert Hague to worked for 15 years at Minessota. Moreover, neither chaffeur had insurance. Nevertheless, Robert Hague had purchased an insurance that covering his three cars: The Allstate insurance. This provides for accidents with uninsured drivers, a coverage of $ 15,000 for each automobile. After moving in Minessota, the legal representative of Robert Hague: Hague Lavina, brought an action in a Minnesota trial court to enforce the forum law that allows the “staking” of three automobiles, allowing a total of 45 000 $. The Minnesota court accepted the application of the forum law. Therefore, insurance Allstate Insurance opposed this desicion before the Court of Appeal of Minnesota, requesting the enforcement of Winconsin law which does not allow the “staking” of coverage. It bases its request in the fact that the decedent was resident in Winconsin, and therefore it falls in the interest of the State of Wisconsin to applied its legislation. However, the solution of the Minnesota trial court is confirmed by the Court of Appeal of Minessota and then by the Supreme Court in a desicion of January 13, 1981.
The Supreme Court declare the application of Minnesota law because of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Justice Stevens conclude that the two clauses mentionned aren't violated by the previous desicion. by stating in first place:
_That the principle of sovereignty reached by The Full Faith and Credit Clause, is not violated by the application of Minnesota law.
-In second place, the due process is respected, since the “staking” allowed do not represent a disadvantage for the parties but in addition, in view of the relationship between the decedent and the Minnesota, by the regular employment of Robert Hague in Minnesota during 15 years. It was in the interest of the state then to apply its own legislation.
This desicion is important in the sense that it allows a broad interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. It is an extension of a precent case law "Pennoyer V. Neff" from 1878 , which states that "a state would act arbitrarily and in violation of the provision of the due process of law if its laws were applied to persons resident in outside the state and having no relations with the state. " The decision of the Supreme Court, however, here, apllied this principle in reverse order, then : The deceased having a direct relationship with Minnesota, it is not a violation of the sovereignty of Wisconsin the applying of Minnesota law.
This solution reflects the conflicts of law that may occur because of the federal system of the United States, including the sovereignty allowed to each state. Indeed, in the United States, each state has its own legislation, and therefore its own laws, that why it is difficult to attributed the competence to a state legislation when the case contains elements with links to different states.
Merci d'avoir lu mon devoir jusque là 
merciii
), mais si jamais c'était pour la rentrée ta présentation, voilà quelques fautes que j'ai repérées : 
)
