One-sided contract term of the day (2): uneven litigation rights

Another golden oldie that is getting an airing. Investors often propose terms that, in another environment, would be perceived as aggressively one-sided, but which seem to be regarded as conventional in the investment world.

IP Draughts

We continue our series highlighting IP Draughts’ “favourite” one-sided provisions in contracts.  These provisions are often found in contracts where there is an imbalance of power between the parties, and where the party with the power (let us call him the “Patron”) seeks to reduce a sometimes theoretical risk by imposing it on the other party (the “Supplicant”).

Today’s one-sided term is:

Clause X does not prevent the Patron from taking proceedings relating to a Dispute (“Proceedings”) in any other court or tribunal with jurisdiction.  To the extent allowed by law, the Patron may take concurrent Proceedings in any number of jurisdictions.

Typically, Clause X states that the agreement is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of a named court.

Thus the Patron is “having his cake and eating it”.  The Supplicant is forced to litigate in the court named in Clause X.  The Patron can litigate in that court if…

View original post 409 more words

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s