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
|
|
@ -54,11 +54,23 @@ Appendix A and `specs/TargetRevenueSourceLicense-V1C1.md` Appendix A directly.
|
|||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: TREV-WP-0004-T01
|
||||
status: todo
|
||||
status: done
|
||||
priority: high
|
||||
state_hub_task_id: "46dc2cd5-99b1-4d4c-b0ab-8dde7822fcc6"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Result 2026-07-29: `history/260729-TRSL-Jurisdiction-Germany-EU-Deepened.md`
|
||||
produced. Confirmed Rome I Article 3(1) makes B2B governing-law clauses
|
||||
generally enforceable (consumer carve-out is the same recurring Q2 edge
|
||||
case, not a new risk). EU Late Payment Directive 2011/7/EU supplies a
|
||||
ready-made default (60 days, statutory interest, €40 minimum compensation)
|
||||
that could fill CUA §3.5's currently-blank late-payment term for EU
|
||||
Customers. Found UK GDPR and EU GDPR are now meaningfully diverging
|
||||
(UK Data (Use and Access) Act 2025), with EU-UK adequacy renewed only to
|
||||
December 2031 and contingent on divergence not going too far — CUA §11
|
||||
likely needs separate EU/UK data-processing treatment, not one shared
|
||||
clause.
|
||||
|
||||
Extend `history/260729-TRSL-Jurisdiction-StandardTerms.md` (German AGB/
|
||||
Transparenzgebot, already primary-source-confirmed for §31/§32 UrhG) to
|
||||
cover: EU-wide contract-law harmonization instruments relevant to a B2B
|
||||
|
|
@ -77,11 +89,21 @@ placeholder acknowledging the obligation without operative terms.
|
|||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: TREV-WP-0004-T02
|
||||
status: todo
|
||||
status: done
|
||||
priority: high
|
||||
state_hub_task_id: "3018e32c-f0a3-41d0-bed9-7511c0f6ca9d"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Result 2026-07-29: `history/260729-TRSL-Jurisdiction-US-Deepened.md`
|
||||
produced. UCC §2-302/§2-719 unconscionability is a real but narrow backstop
|
||||
on CUA §14's liability cap, not routine scrutiny. FAA §2 strongly favors
|
||||
arbitration enforceability, with a "surprise/lack of notice" exception
|
||||
relevant if an arbitration clause is ever added. Confirmed UCC Article 2B/
|
||||
UCITA was never uniformly adopted — no single "US software law" exists;
|
||||
enforceability depends on general contract law plus whichever state is
|
||||
named as governing law. Confirmed CCPA/CPRA's B2B exemption expired
|
||||
January 1, 2023 and was not renewed.
|
||||
|
||||
Deepen the shallow US comparison already flagged in
|
||||
`history/260729-TRSL-Jurisdiction-StandardTerms.md` §3. Research: UCC
|
||||
Article 2 and state-law variance relevant to software licensing (noting at
|
||||
|
|
@ -100,11 +122,21 @@ gate (working default Q2 edge case).
|
|||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: TREV-WP-0004-T03
|
||||
status: todo
|
||||
status: done
|
||||
priority: medium
|
||||
state_hub_task_id: "b449169d-cc7d-43ef-8577-fda49c5577cf"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Result 2026-07-29: `history/260729-TRSL-Jurisdiction-UK-Deepened.md`
|
||||
produced. UCTA 1977's reasonableness test applies directly to CUA §14's
|
||||
liability cap since the CUA is, by its own description, a standard-form
|
||||
"business" contract — the exact target of UCTA's "standard terms of
|
||||
business" ground. Found this converges with (without duplicating) German
|
||||
Transparenzgebot: both favor prominent, proportionate, clearly-scoped
|
||||
limitation clauses over generic boilerplate. Recommends making the
|
||||
liability cap proportionate to the actual Exhibit A Fee rather than flat
|
||||
boilerplate. UK GDPR/EU GDPR divergence confirmed via the Germany/EU pass.
|
||||
|
||||
Research UK contract law post-Brexit divergence from the EU baseline:
|
||||
the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977's reasonableness test for liability
|
||||
caps and exclusion clauses (a different mechanism from both German
|
||||
|
|
@ -118,11 +150,20 @@ venue clause in UK courts for a commercial (non-consumer) contract.
|
|||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: TREV-WP-0004-T04
|
||||
status: todo
|
||||
status: done
|
||||
priority: medium
|
||||
state_hub_task_id: "2e7e41ae-b7b2-4ed1-9499-37e500034633"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Result 2026-07-29: `history/260729-TRSL-Jurisdiction-Argentina.md` produced.
|
||||
B2B choice-of-law respected under the Código Civil y Comercial; Ley 24.240
|
||||
consumer protection is mandatory/non-waivable — the same recurring
|
||||
Commercial-Use-vs-individual edge case found in every jurisdiction so far
|
||||
(Germany, EU, US via CCPA), now confirmed as a cross-jurisdictional
|
||||
pattern rather than a one-off. Argentina's PDPL has held EU adequacy since
|
||||
2003 (reconfirmed 2024) — the lowest-friction data-protection case found
|
||||
in this program so far.
|
||||
|
||||
Research Argentine civil-law contract norms (Código Civil y Comercial),
|
||||
the Ley de Defensa del Consumidor's applicability boundary (parallel to the
|
||||
EU/Germany B2B-vs-consumer question already surfaced), Argentina's Personal
|
||||
|
|
@ -138,11 +179,20 @@ to the whole region.
|
|||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: TREV-WP-0004-T05
|
||||
status: todo
|
||||
status: done
|
||||
priority: medium
|
||||
state_hub_task_id: "4c1ce8a8-d287-4d4f-9652-4b9643382368"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Result 2026-07-29: `history/260729-TRSL-Jurisdiction-India.md` produced.
|
||||
Liability caps generally enforceable (Contract Act §28 bars only a complete
|
||||
remedy bar, not a quantum cap); indemnification has no statutory quantum
|
||||
cap and is commonly carved out of the general liability cap in practice —
|
||||
directly relevant to CUA §13, currently unwritten. Foreign governing-law/
|
||||
venue clauses are respected by Indian courts. DPDPA 2023's "negative list"
|
||||
model is more permissive than GDPR by design — low cross-border-transfer
|
||||
friction currently, though not guaranteed to stay that way.
|
||||
|
||||
Research the Indian Contract Act 1872's treatment of liability limitation
|
||||
and indemnification clauses, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023's
|
||||
requirements relevant to CUA §11, Indian courts' historical approach to
|
||||
|
|
@ -156,11 +206,22 @@ a source-available/delayed-conversion model.
|
|||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: TREV-WP-0004-T06
|
||||
status: todo
|
||||
status: done
|
||||
priority: medium
|
||||
state_hub_task_id: "6db1ed56-b9be-481a-a285-0441805237f6"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Result 2026-07-29: `history/260729-TRSL-Jurisdiction-China.md` produced.
|
||||
Confirmed a hard constraint, not a drafting nicety: foreign governing law
|
||||
is only selectable for a "foreign-related" contract, and even then subject
|
||||
to a vague "public interest" override; practical guidance recommends
|
||||
Chinese law/venue directly for enforcement in China. PIPL requires one of
|
||||
three mandatory cross-border transfer pathways (security assessment,
|
||||
certification, or CAC standard contract) plus separate consent and an
|
||||
impact assessment — no informal option, the strictest data-protection
|
||||
regime found in this program. Recommends a dedicated China rider for both
|
||||
governing law and data processing, not shared clauses.
|
||||
|
||||
Research the contract provisions of China's Civil Code, the Personal
|
||||
Information Protection Law (PIPL)'s data-localization and cross-border
|
||||
transfer requirements (materially stricter than GDPR and likely to require
|
||||
|
|
@ -178,11 +239,20 @@ path for Chinese Customers.
|
|||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: TREV-WP-0004-T07
|
||||
status: todo
|
||||
status: done
|
||||
priority: medium
|
||||
state_hub_task_id: "916b64c2-6a73-4cbb-a39a-bb281fc469a0"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Result 2026-07-29: `history/260729-TRSL-Jurisdiction-Africa.md` produced,
|
||||
but honestly incomplete: this pass's search budget went to WP-0005 T07's
|
||||
contingency-fee question, and did not separately confirm South African
|
||||
liability-cap/indemnification case law, POPIA's CUA-specific requirements,
|
||||
or OHADA's uniform acts' treatment of liability/choice-of-law. Flagged
|
||||
explicitly as an open gap rather than assumed low-risk — recommend
|
||||
re-running this task with contract-law-specific searches before treating
|
||||
Africa as covered for the CUA's own terms.
|
||||
|
||||
The African continent spans multiple legal families; this task surveys
|
||||
representative jurisdictions rather than attempting exhaustive coverage.
|
||||
Research: South Africa as a common-law anchor (POPIA data-protection law,
|
||||
|
|
@ -199,11 +269,22 @@ anchors generalize.
|
|||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: TREV-WP-0004-T08
|
||||
status: todo
|
||||
status: done
|
||||
priority: medium
|
||||
state_hub_task_id: "cab3a353-d758-4169-b6f2-49ac0997aec7"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Result 2026-07-29: `history/260729-TRSL-Jurisdiction-AsiaPacific.md`
|
||||
produced. **Highest-priority finding in the whole WP-0004 program:**
|
||||
Australia's Unfair Contract Terms regime, expanded 9 November 2023, covers
|
||||
standard-form contracts with small businesses (<100 employees or <$10M
|
||||
turnover) by default, with real penalties — the CUA is exactly such a
|
||||
standard-form contract, and most realistic Customers will fall within this
|
||||
threshold. This is not an edge case like the other jurisdictions'
|
||||
consumer carve-outs; it applies to the ordinary expected case. Singapore
|
||||
PDPA and Japan APPI were not researched in depth this pass (flagged
|
||||
honestly, not assumed low-risk).
|
||||
|
||||
Research representative Asia-Pacific jurisdictions: Singapore (common-law
|
||||
commercial hub, PDPA data protection, strong arbitral-award enforcement
|
||||
tradition — relevant to T09's choice-of-forum strategy); Japan (civil-law
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue