Electronic commerce jurisdiction: are forum selection clauses in online contracts enforceable? An analysis focused on Canadian and American case law and the works on jurisdiction of The Hague Conference of Private International Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forum selection clauses appear as a mechanism that may provide jurisdictional certainty and predictability to electronic commerce. Nevertheless, those clauses may not be always a satisfactory solution to parties in online contracts because such clauses may not be enforced in certain circumstances. By examining the law of forum selection clauses in Canada and the United States, this thesis discusses the circumstances in which forum selection clauses may not be enforced due to the application of discretionary tests and their inclusion in consumer contracts. This thesis also reviews the enforceability of forum selection clauses in 'clickwrap' and 'browsewrap' contracts in Canadian and American case law. Moreover, this thesis studies whether discretionary tests and non-enforcement of forum selection clauses in online business to consumer transactions favour the development of electronic commerce. Finally, this thesis addresses the enforcement of forum selection clauses within the works of The Hague Conference of Private International Law.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".