This dissertation uses the latest development in consumer protection law in Vietnam (the adoption of the Consumer Protection Law of 2010 to regulate transactions between consumers and traders) to test key claims in competing legal transplantation theories. This research investigates comparative law debates about the legitimacy, usefulness and possibility of legal transplantation in law reform in developing and transitional countries. Alan Watson and his proponents believe strongly in the possibility of legal transplants, but fail to provide a clear and concrete methodology for producing effective and efficient laws. On the other hand, Robert Seidman and Ann Seidman openly reject the legitimacy of legal transplants, but offer a comprehensive methodology for effectively conducting law reform projects. They believe that, by following a problem-solving institutionalist legislative theory, legal drafters and law-makers in charge of law reform projects can easily produce effective and efficient laws. This dissertation argues that the nature of the reform of laws regulating consumer transactions in Vietnam is much more complex than Watson’s theory imagines. It also shows that, although the reception of foreign legal models is part of this law reform project, past legal transplants as well as the local law-making culture may filter or even inhibit the reception of foreign legal solutions. This research also reveals that current consumer law reform in Vietnam tends to follow the problem-solving approach, although it deviates somewhat from the legislative methodology proposed by the Seidmans. This dissertation attempts to clarify these deviations and explain the reasons for them. / Graduate