contract law. Churchville v. GACS Inc., 973 So.2d 1212, 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); see Robbie v. City of Miami, 469 So.2d 1384, 1385 (Fla.1985) (“Settlements, of course, are governed by the rules of interpretation of contracts.”). Generally, Florida follows the “significant-relationships” test from the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 145 (1971), when determining the applicable law in tort cases. Dep’t of Corr. v. McGhee, 653 So.2d 1091, 1092 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). When determining the validity, nature, and interpretation of a contract, however, Florida adheres to the rule of lex loci contractus— applying the law of the state or country where the contract is executed. Goodman v. Olsen, 305 So.2d 753, 754-55 (Fla.1974); see Sturiano v. Brooks, 523 So.2d 1126, 1130-31 (Fla.1988) (<HOLDING>). Here, the substantive issue is the legal
recognizing that first amendment provides qualified right of access to judicial documents recognizing rule recognizing and applying from united mine workers rule recognizing trend towards significantrelationships test but applying inflexible rule of lex loci contractus because parties have right to know what their agreement provides holding that terms identifying persons in a manner that the parties to the release would know who was to be benefitted sufficient under specific identity rule