Cross border consumer contracts : jurisdictional issues

Abstract

One of the objectives of the Brussels I Regulation is to provide protective jurisdiction rules allowing the consumer to sue in his home jurisdiction. Since consumers are regarded as the weaker party when a contract is concluded between a supplier and a consumer, consumers are afforded special protection under the rules of the Regulation. This dissertation will attempt to examine these jurisdiction provisions in relation to crossborder consumer contracts. In addition, the Brussels I Regulation introduced the concept of the suppliers' 'directing its activities towards particular Member State or States' as a ground for the consumer to sue the supplier in the country of the consumer's domicile. This dissertation will endeavor to analyse these changes brought about by the same Brussels I Regulation to the regime of jurisdiction over online consumer contracts. The Court which has jurisdiction to solve a dispute can be selected by common accord between the parties. In principle such choice of jurisdiction clauses are prohibited in consumer contracts save under the conditions as set out in the Brussels I Regulation. Jurisdictional clauses in standard terms agreements may be set aside on the basis of the Unfair Contract Terms Directive. Consequently, an attempt to analyse when such jurisdictional clauses will be deemed unfair will also be made. Finally, in view of the discussions surrounding the importance of improving consumers' access to justice, a brief discussion will observe the role of Alternative Dispute Mechanisms in improving this challenge.