Re: question about Governing Law

[Carole Pilkinton <Carole.J.Pilkinton.10@nd.edu>]

Carol,

I would be very interested in hearing more about your experience about how
it is more effective to maintain jurisdiction. Do you mean the publisher
jurisdiction, or just a specific jurisdiction (possibly that of the
institution)? Can you give us some examples about how it is/was harmful
for institutions to have not specified a jurisdiction as compared to when
the publisher-specified jurisdiction was accepted and a legal disagreement
arose? I'm just curious to understand more about whether there is evidence
to support your idea that it is more effective for both parties to accept
the publisher's preferred jurisdiction. If the library/institution asked
for their own state to be accepted as the place of jurisdiction, would you
as publisher be more inclined to accept that than an omission of location?
--Carole

On 7/1/2005 10:06 PM Richman, Carol wrote the following:

> I'll relay what I told Angi in private yesterday.  The ommission of a
> jurisdiction clause could be harmful for both parties (legal
> responsibilities, costs, etc.)  If both parties can agree on removing the
> clause, then they must add a very strict arbitration clause, which would
> outline where arbitration would take place, who would bear the costs, etc.  
> It is much more effective for both parties to maintain the jurisdiction
> clause.
>
> Carol Richman
> Director of Licensing
> SAGE Publications
> 410-327-6808
> carol.richman@sagepub.com
> www.sagepub.com