MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-06-23 19:12:41 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote:
<snip> >> Stock objection to choice of venue clauses is that they force people >> to travel at their own expense. In essence they attempt to bypass the >> legal system by making it prohibitively expensive for somebody to >> defend themselves. > > This doesn't seem to be a stock choice of venue clause, though. It > only applies when there is a US party and some have claimed that the > choice of venue clause would not necessarily prevent a US defendant > being heard in their local court, such as Nathanael Nerode in > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00237.html I think you might have been confused by what I said. I was describing, in that message, how things work if there is *no* choice of venue clause. If there is a choice of venue clause (and it's considered valid, which it likely would be), it's likely that it would require a US defendant to go to Santa Clara to avoid summary judgement. -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
