[Hague-jur-commercial-law] Press on The Hague Special Commission Meeting Dec1-9, 2003

[Manon Ress]

Hi Michael,

Other people know more about this and should correct me if I'm wrong.

Choice of forum clause in contracts, ALL contracts are included unless 
specifically excluded (like employment contracts) and of course contract 
on the internet are NOT excluded (see Article 1 Scope).   Which is why 
some observers are concerned about choice of forum clauses in non- 
negotiated contracts (click-on and others kind of contracts you have to 
sign when on the internet) and anxious to see good "escape clauses" if a 
contract is unfair or unjust.

As to why, it's included...some say you cannot separate e-contracts from 
other contracts (that would make us go into the contract formation zone, 
it's not easy), some say solving some aspects of the "internet 
jurisdiction" problem  is actually one of the treaty (and Hague 
Conference)' goals,  others talk about the need of specific stakeholders 
(think of what people buy on the internet: software, music and other 
copyrighted goods)....whatever the reasons, I wish  electronic 
contracting was out  (and maybe let UNCITRAL work on that?) but it's in. 

A choice of forum clause in a contract is valid  if entered in writing 
"or by any other means of communication".

Unless a court decide that "giving effect to the agreement would lead to 
a very serious injustice or would be manifestly contrary to fundamental 
principles of public policy".....well, not that often, right?

Manon


Michael Sondow wrote:

>Manon Ress wrote:
>  
>
>>Warren's Washington Internet Daily
>>Wednesday December 10, 2003
>>Vol. 4, No. 237
>>
>>[SNIP]
>>
>>E-Commerce Disputes
>>
>>Talks on Intellectual Property Issues To Resume Next Year
>>
>>Intellectual property (IP) issues remained unresolved Tues. as delegates
>>at Special Commission of the
>>Hague Conference on Private International Law meeting scurried to find
>>common ground on a treaty aimed
>>at harmonizing jurisdiction in e-commerce contract disputes.
>>    
>>
>
>This must be an error on the part of the author, D. Standeford. The
>Hague Convention isn't "a treaty aimed
>at harmonizing jurisdiction in e-commerce contract disputes". It relates
>to "disputes", period. 
>
>Furthermore, I was under the impression, apparently mistaken now, that
>e-commerce disputes were going to be left out of this treaty, by common
>consensus. Isn't that what was agreed upon when the delegates decided to
>negotiate an abbreviated treaty?
>
>This is all rather confusing, frankly. Can someone straighten it out? Is
>e-commerce now part of the treaty? Is it the whole treaty? What's going
>on here?
>
>M. Sondow
>_______________________________________________
>Hague-jur-commercial-law mailing list
>Hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org
>http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/hague-jur-commercial-law
>
>
>  
>


-- 
Manon Anne Ress
Consumer Project on Technology
www.cptech.org
PO Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
manon.ress@cptech.org, voice: 1.202.387.8030, fax: 1.202.234.5176