applies, Texas bears a reasonable relationship to the parties and the transaction because the defendant’s principal place of business is in Texas, and the issues in this case involve basic contract law, so there will be no substantial difference in the outcome of this case if Texas law is applied”). {11} Even though the parties contracted to apply Texas law and Texas bears a reasonable relationship to the agreement, we will refuse to enforce the choice-of-law provision if to do so would offend New Mexico public policy. See United Wholesale Liquor Co., 108 N.M. at 470, 775 P.2d at 236 (stating that “the forum may decline to apply the out-of-state law if it offends the public policy of New Mexico”); accord Reagan v. McGee Drilling Corp., 1997-NMCA-014, ¶¶8-9, 123 N.M. 68, 933 P.2d 867 (<HOLDING>), limited on other grounds by Pina v. Gray
recognizing that new mexico courts will enforce a contractual choiceoflaw provision unless to do so would violate fundamental principle of justice or deeprooted traditions of new mexico recognizing the validity of the singlelarceny doctrine in new mexico holding that defendants could be convicted of bribery in new mexico even though the actual transaction occurred in texas since defendants attempted to obstruct justice in new mexico holding that fundamental navajo customs and traditions are part of higher law recognizing that new mexico has adopted the common law unless otherwise abrogated by specific statutory provisions and that the power of a trial court to change venue on its own motion if necessary to assure the defendant a fair trial is part of that common law