[Hague-jur-commercial-law] "Snipped" Governments' letter on the hague

[Manon Anne Ress]

Dear Colleague,
Comments from governments are out.  The format is quite unusual and I 
will not post all of them (38pages) just yet.  Email me if you need them 
today or tomorrow.  I have Hungary, Canada, Australia, EC, US, Japan and 
China.  Most are "formal" agreement to meet in December to work on the 
current B2B draft convention.

Here a few lines from the most interesting ones:

The US stated:
SNIP "it is essential that there be thorough consultation and 
coordination with public and private stakholders worlwide.  For example, 
in our recent discussions we have heard concerns expressed by 
non-profits, libraries and education organizations, and internet service 
  providers about provisions on the validity of choice of court clauses. 
  There is also concern expressed by patent and trademark associations 
thar provisions should reflect best international practice"
END of QUOTE

European Commission:
SNIP"the European Community is able to inform you that such a draft 
Convention may provide an adequate working basis for further discussions 
in the Special Commission meeting in December 2003.  Having said that, 
the content of the draft must be improved in a number of respects [SNIP} 
in December 2003, the Community will have an opportunity to state its views"
END OF QUOte

The most substantial comments were provided by the Government of Japan.

"First, it should be examined carefully how to deal with each kind of 
intellectual proerty rights separately.  For example, we pick up 
"validity of patents" in Article 1 93)(k)..."
SNIP
on Non-negotiated contract:

"the current draft text included within the scope of the convention an 
electronically concuded contract such as so-called "click-on contract" 
which one party concluded by clicking on a designated icon on the 
web-site of the other party.  This way of concluding contracts, however, 
tends to cause errors in the course of errors in the course of operating 
computers.  Considering such a problem, it may be necwessary to examine 
carefully whether or not such contracts should be included within the 
scope of the convention."
The Japanese comments are detailed and addressed issues related to 
validity (formal and substantive), problems with article 4, 7 , conflict 
of judgments, damages and the drafter also provide examples of possible 
"ambiguity"...



-- 
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