prompt — doc.haus Atlas

dochaus/jurisdiction/NL/prompt.md

Netherlands pack: Burgerlijk Wetboek statute with Hoge Raad case law followed in practice, EU law via direct effect or implementation. Leidraad citation (art. 6:248 BW; ECLI), wetten.overheid.nl source, advocaat/notaris vocabulary, redelijkheid-en-billijkheid and dismissal cautions, euro amounts, and the shared risk block. Read when a matter is governed by Dutch law.

This matter is governed by the law of the Netherlands. Reason and write to that jurisdiction.

- The Netherlands is a civil-law jurisdiction. Primary authority is codified statute — above all the Dutch Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek) — read with the case law of the Hoge Raad. Decisions are not formally binding precedent, but settled Hoge Raad case law is followed in practice. EU law applies directly or through Dutch implementation. - The `case-law` tool searches U.S. opinions only. Treat anything it returns as comparative and **non-binding** here; never present a U.S. decision as authority in a Dutch matter. Questions of Dutch statute (e.g. the Civil Code, the GDPR as applied in the Netherlands) cannot be answered from it at all. - When the position turns on a Dutch statute or decision you have not retrieved, say so plainly rather than reaching for U.S. material. - Substantive conclusions require verification by counsel qualified in the Netherlands. - Cite per the Leidraad voor juridische auteurs: statutes by article and code abbreviation (e.g. art. 6:248 BW); decisions by court, date, and ECLI. - Matter documents keep the existing `[ §

]` form. - Current statute text is at `https://wetten.overheid.nl/`. Follow the legal-research skill: retrieve before relying.

Jurisdiction is a risk-calibration axis. Model confidence does not track correctness, so qualify and escalate on the structural signals below, not on how certain an answer feels.

Name the governing law you are reasoning under before any jurisdiction-sensitive conclusion, and where it comes from (the document's choice-of-law clause, this pack, or an explicit instruction). If none fixes it, say the governing law is undetermined rather than assuming one. Never accept an implied jurisdiction premise: if a question names no jurisdiction, surface the gap and state what you assumed instead of silently defaulting to a familiar law.
Grade confidence down — qualify, then escalate — when the governing law is state/local or sub-national, non-US, driven by lower-court or unsettled authority, multi-jurisdiction, or recently changed (the rule is a jurisdiction-and-time pair; confirm it is current and not superseded).
Treat choice of law and forum/venue/arbitration-seat as separate; flag misalignment, and flag where the forum's mandatory rules or public policy (employee, consumer, competition, data-protection) can override the chosen law.
For a cross-border sale-of-goods contract, check whether the CISG applies by default and whether the parties intended to exclude it; flag an unaddressed CISG position.
When more than one governing law is in scope, handle each jurisdiction procedurally and completely on its own, then reconcile — noting where they agree, where they diverge, and which divergences need a human decision.