Complete WP-0004 and WP-0005 jurisdiction research (8 of 8 each)
Executes all remaining shared jurisdictions across both workplans: Germany/EU (deepened contract-law angle), US (deepened), UK (deepened), Argentina, India, China, Africa (South Africa + OHADA), and Asia-Pacific (Singapore, Japan, Australia) - 13 new history/ research artifacts. Highest-priority findings: - Australia's Unfair Contract Terms regime (expanded Nov 2023) covers standard-form contracts with any business under 100 employees/$10M turnover by default - the CUA is exactly such a contract, and most realistic Customers fall within this threshold. Unlike every other jurisdiction's consumer carve-out, this is not an edge case. - China requires a "foreign-related" contract even to select foreign governing law, subject to a vague public-interest override even then - confirms a dedicated China rider is needed for both the License/CUA and the Enforcement Partner Agreement, not a shared global clause. - India flatly prohibits advocate contingency fees (no exception gates, stricter than Germany) while explicitly permitting third-party litigation funding - the cleanest confirmation yet that the Litigation Funder/Local Counsel split-role model is both necessary and legal there. - Japan's Article 12 fee-splitting rule means even the split-role fallback needs jurisdiction-specific structuring - the first case where the workaround itself, not just the original mechanism, has an open compliance question. - Contingency Share ceilings vary widely where available: UK 50% (exact match), South Africa 25%, Argentina 35% (50% only with risk assumption), China 18% down to 6% on a sliding scale that shrinks as claims grow. - Recurring cross-jurisdictional pattern (Germany, EU, US via CCPA, Argentina): B2B governing-law/liability clauses are respected, but an individual/sole-proprietor Customer's consumer-protection status is the operative risk everywhere, not a one-off edge case. Updates specs/EnforcementNetworkConcept.md §8.1 with a full 12-jurisdiction findings table and three cross-cutting conclusions. Updates both V1C1 documents' Appendix A items (governing law, liability cap, data protection) with the most consequential findings. Both workplans now have only their human-gated synthesis tasks (T09-T10 / T10) remaining. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
7e9cb08ce6
commit
11f2dc3a6d
19 changed files with 643 additions and 27 deletions
|
|
@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ This appendix is not part of the operative license text. It tracks what must be
|
|||
| 3 | §1, §2 | Exact scope of "Noncommercial Use" | **[LEGAL]** | `history/260729-TRSL-PriorArt-Survey.md` §3.3 |
|
||||
| 4 | §4 | Patent license clause text, review against local patent law | **[LEGAL]** | `history/260729-TRSL-FutureLicense-PatentPrecedent.md` §4 |
|
||||
| 5 | §7 | Whether a cured breach should generate a compensating Target Ledger entry | **[OPEN]** | — |
|
||||
| 6 | §11.1 | Governing law and venue selection | **[LEGAL, OPEN]** | `history/260729-TRSL-Jurisdiction-StandardTerms.md` §2–§3; broader global research and proposed resolution tracked in `workplans/TREV-WP-0004-global-jurisdiction-research.md` T09–T10 |
|
||||
| 6 | §11.1 | Governing law and venue selection | **[LEGAL, OPEN]** | All 8 jurisdiction/family tasks in `workplans/TREV-WP-0004-global-jurisdiction-research.md` now done (T01–T08); T09 (cross-cutting choice-of-law strategy) and T10 (synthesis) remain open. **China (T06) confirmed a hard constraint**: foreign governing law requires a "foreign-related" contract and is subject to a vague "public interest" override even then — a single global clause will not work for China specifically. |
|
||||
| 7 | (all) | Full review under German AGB law (Transparenzgebot) and, where applicable, EU consumer-protection law | **[LEGAL]** | `history/260729-TRSL-Jurisdiction-StandardTerms.md` §1–§2 |
|
||||
| 8 | (all) | Contributor rights sufficient to grant this License and the Future License (CLA) | **[LEGAL]**, separate deliverable | `history/260729-TRSL-ContributorRights-Research.md` §4 |
|
||||
| 9 | (all) | Full specialist legal review in every jurisdiction of intended use | **[LEGAL]** | `specs/TargetRevenueLicenseConcept.md` §21.5 |
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue