Inter-Jurisdictional Liability
Category/etc: Advancement of Industry (Tort Reform)
Description: The World Assembly,
Acknowledging the general right of people and organisations involved in contracts or other agreements for the provision of goods or services to bring law-suits against the other parties involved if they think that the agreed terms of those deals have not properly been met,
Aware that many such agreements and contracts are made between parties based in different legal jurisdictions, and in some cases also involve actions to be taken in further jurisdictions as well,
Concerned that in cases where such arrangements do overlap jurisdictions plaintiffs might deliberately choose to bring suit through whichever legal system offers them the highest chances of success and high compensation, even if that jurisdiction is not one that would actually seem most reasonable in terms of relevance to the deal, and not only that might such ‘shopping around’ be unfair to the other parties involved but also that even the potential for it to occur might itself inhibit inter-jurisdictional trade,
Recognising that the laws and processes applicable in such cases are likely to differ between jurisdictions, and that people might not be aware of how any foreign jurisdictions within which they potentially might have to bring cases operate in this respect,
Noting also that there is currently no WA legislation requiring member nations to recognise debts incurred by their residents either through involvement in international commercial arrangements or while travelling abroad,
Wishing to resolve these problems, in order to enhance the fairness and viability of inter-jurisdictional trade;
Hereby,
1). Accepts that national and sub-national authorities have a reasonable right to set and enforce minimum allowable standards for the quality of goods and services to be produced within, imported into and/or exported from their jurisdictions;
2.) Requires that any authorities within WA member nations who do set and enforce quality standards on trade do so on a fair and equable basis;
3). Declares that anybody supplying goods or services commercially and legally to or from anywhere within the WA’s membership may specify in the contract or other agreement involved (with clearly-displayed conditions of sale counting as such) that one particular jurisdiction within the WA’s membership is the only one where any law-suits regarding that arrangement other than cases for failure to meet relevant quality standards can be brought, as long as that jurisdiction would be reasonably relevant either to the supplier’s business as a whole or to this deal in particular anyway, and that if they do this then
A/ No case (other than for failure to meet relevant quality standards) can legally be brought against them in this matter anywhere else within any WA member nation;
B/ No legal authorities within WA member nations can enforce judgements made about this matter by courts located in any jurisdiction other than the one specified;
C/ Except as limited by any other relevant GA resolutions, any judgements made about this matter by courts within the specified jurisdiction must be recognised as valid by all other jurisdictions within WA member nations and any financial payments that any party to these cases is legally required to make due to those judgements must be treated as collectable within those other jurisdictions through the same processes that would be used for collecting payments specified as required due to cases within those jurisdictions’ own courts;
4). Directs [COMMITTEE] to establish and operate an International Library of Commercial Law; Instructs all WA member nations to supply this Library with full copies of their relevant legislation, and with accurate annual reports summarising how they have handled relevant cases; Instructs this Library to collect comparable data about non-members’ legal systems as well where this is possible; and Orders this Library to make its information available upon request in exchange for reasonable fees;
5.) Instructs [COMMITTEE] to maintain an accurate list of any jurisdictions outside of the WA’s membership that voluntarily announce and demonstrate full willingness to comply with this resolution’s terms as though they were actually bound by WA law, and Requires all member-nations to treat those jurisdictions as though they were indeed within the WA for the purposes of this resolution.
“The references to “[COMMITTEE]” in this draft will be replaced by the name an appropriate pre-existing WA agency once we’ve decided hwhich one best fits this role.
“Ourr original plan was that this proposal would also cover the collection of debts in general across jurisdictional boundaries, or at least of all debts due to commercial arrangements, in addition to the collection of those payments required due to legal cases brought within this resolution’s terms. However we have now decided that that factor would work better as the subject for a separate proposal — which would probably in the ‘Free Trade’ category, or maybeso as ‘Moral Decency’, depending on its main emphasis — instead.
"Yes, we do realise that the current draft is rrather too long to be submitted in its present form, but we're showing it to you now to hear responses before continuing with -- or dropping -- this project."
Ursiosina RedRose,
Commercial Attaché,
Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.
_____________________________________________________________________
OOC: My original version of the preamble’s 3rd cause included a suggestion that such ‘shopping around’ might actually result in some jurisdictions adjusting their laws accordingly, in order to attract cases into their legal systems, so that they could profit from legal fees and perhaps even take a cut of the fines imposed. I’ve dropped this argument for now, although bearing in mind how some governments here in NS behave I still do suspect that some jurisdictions might behave thus…
) unusually stringent commercial law. On the other hand, with the protections of 3.A and 3.B in place, parties are able to specify the jurisdiction that will handle their disputes, just as they do IRL, without worrying about lawsuits from out of left field. If they don't bother to so specify when drafting their contracts, it's not the WA's job to hold their hand. In short I don't see this as a worry with this draft as written.
