[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: jurisdiction language
- To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
- Subject: Re: jurisdiction language
- From: "rrhoon.mail.ncsu.edu" <robert_hoon@ncsu.edu>
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 18:28:59 EDT
- Reply-To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
It did work. The license was agreed to and executed. The alternative was the failure to secure access to an important resource due to an inflexible rule based upon a disproportionate perception of risk. I think what you mean is you would not elect to use or recommend the language -- for understandable reasons. The conflict of laws would have to be resolved in the unlikely event of a justicable dispute. As I said, an imperfect solution, but greatly preferable to the alternative. Everyone has to determine their own point of discomfort in the assumption of risks, the point is to make it an informed decision -- reasonable minds will differ here . . . I believe, however, risk management does not mean risk avoidance. Given the nature and number of risks assumed daily in a university setting, this would, and should, rate very low on the risk continuum. This is a reality in contracting for electronic resources in a global industry. Contract policies drafted for state entities were almost universally designed (albeit provincial) for transactions and relationships with businesses from, at best, other states; they do not contemplate the commerce associated with electronic resources from foreign companies, nor do they recognize the industry specific nature of licensing, the actual risks associated with these licenses, and the economic realities giving rise to the types of clauses contained in most licenses e.g. limitation of liability, indemnification, venue and jurisdiction, mandatory arbitration, limited warranties, etc. ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Cox" <John.E.Cox@btinternet.com> To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 9:26 AM Subject: Re: jurisdiction language > I don't think this works. You have to chose which arbitration rules are > to apply. And the arbitrator needs to know under which jurisdiction the > agreement is to be interpreted. > > John Cox Associates > Rookwood, Bradden > TOWCESTER, Northants NN12 8ED > United Kingdom > Tel: +44 (0) 1327 860949 > Fax: +44 (0) 1327 861184 > E-mail: John.E.Cox@btinternet.com
- Prev by Date: Re: jurisdiction language
- Next by Date: Re: Books with media
- Prev by thread: Re: jurisdiction language
- Next by thread: RE: jurisdiction language
- Index(es):