82,891
edits
Exclusive jurisdiction: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{a|negotiation|}}}Governing law chat. Mostly pretty tedious, but the litigation department will get excited about it. Draw what conclusions about them, therefore, as...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|negotiation| | {{a|negotiation|}}[[Governing law]] chat. Mostly<ref>“Mostly”.</ref> pretty tedious, but the [[litigation department]] will get excited about it. Draw what conclusions about them, therefore, as you wish. The fun<ref>As in “fun”.</ref> questions will be such as these: | ||
*Should the courts of (say) [[England and Wales]] have [[Exclusive jurisdiction|exclusive]] or [[non-exclusive jurisdiction]] to hear disputes. Even though the contract is governed by English law, might an Italian court — or a chamber of the Luxembourgouisie — have a stab at arbitrating it? Now I know what you are thinking. In what messed up, purblind existence would one be seriously entertaining a foreign court being asked to apply English law? Just go to an English court! It is a fair question, but you might have a Malaysian [[broker]] contracting with a Venezuelan [[asset manager]] under [[English law]], in which case it might be a pain in the posterior for both to schlep up to the [[courts of chancery]] in Fleet Street to sort out the inevitable dispute. | |||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Rome II]], for just some of the reasons a [[governing law]] clause is so batteringly convoluted. | |||
{{ref}} | |||