Controlling chaos: frameworks for governing virtual relationships

The second part in a series on governing virtual relationships, regarding substantive law issues, is presented. Perhaps the most complicated and pervasive issue presented by the emergence of e-commerce is the determination of where parties can be subject to the jurisdiction of various courts of law....

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Intellectual property & technology law journal 2006-07, Vol.18 (7), p.12
Main Authors: Rosener, James D, McAveney, Shawn P
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Conflict resolution
Contract law
Conventions
Digital signatures
Electronic commerce
Federal court decisions
Internet
Jurisdiction
Laws, regulations and rules
Liability
Personal jurisdiction
Websites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The second part in a series on governing virtual relationships, regarding substantive law issues, is presented. Perhaps the most complicated and pervasive issue presented by the emergence of e-commerce is the determination of where parties can be subject to the jurisdiction of various courts of law. Contracting parties could be subject to suit under the agreement itself (specific jurisdiction), and activities relating to the contract could subject them to suit for other matters (general jurisdiction). US courts use a two-step analysis to determine jurisdiction. First, the court determines if there is an express statutory grant of authority that would allow it to exercise jurisdiction. Second, courts determine whether the exercise of jurisdiction would violate due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. In the European Union, jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute is largely governed by the Brussels Convention, which is only binding to member states. Under the original Brussels Convention, a consumer could choose to bring suit in its own nation or in the nation of the domicile of the merchant.
ISSN:1534-3618