tegwick 11f2dc3a6d 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>

2026-07-29 17:07:42 +02:00

2.7 KiB

Raw Blame History

TRSL Jurisdiction Research: Africa (Representative Jurisdictions)

Document status: Research artifact, Stage 0 (workplans/TREV-WP-0004-global-jurisdiction-research.md T07) Not legal advice. Findings drawn from web research (searched 2026-07-29). Representative-jurisdiction survey, not exhaustive, per the workplan's own scoping caution.

1. This pass did not find CUA-specific contract-law findings for either anchor jurisdiction

Unlike the other WP-0004 jurisdiction tasks, this research pass's searches were weighted toward workplans/TREV-WP-0005-enforcement-network-research.md T07's contingency-fee question (see history/260729-TREN-Jurisdiction-Africa.md) and did not separately surface South African liability-cap/indemnification enforceability case law, POPIA's specific requirements for a CUA-style Data Processing Addendum, or OHADA's harmonized commercial-contract uniform acts' treatment of liability caps or choice of law. This is a genuine gap in this pass, not a finding that these are low-risk — flagged honestly rather than silently left blank.

2. What is confirmed, carried over from the TREN research pass

OHADA is a real, directly-enforceable harmonized business-law framework across 17 (mostly Francophone, civil-law) member states, with its own apex court (Common Court of Justice and Arbitration, Abidjan) — this at least confirms OHADA member states share a common commercial-law framework, which is a meaningful head start for eventually drafting a single OHADA-wide rider rather than needing one per member state, if OHADA's uniform acts do turn out to cover the relevant CUA topics (not yet confirmed).
South Africa operates under its own domestic legal system (common-law derived, distinct from OHADA) — a South African rider would need to be researched independently of any OHADA finding, not treated as covered by it.

3. Summary for the WP-0004 feasibility matrix (T10)

Question	South Africa	OHADA zone
Liability cap / indemnification enforceability	Not researched — open	Not researched — open
Data protection regime	POPIA exists (referenced, not researched in depth)	Not researched
Foreign governing-law/venue enforceability	Not researched	Not researched

4. Open items for T10 synthesis

This task should be re-run with contract-law-specific searches (POPIA requirements, South African liability-cap case law, OHADA's Uniform Act on General Commercial Law provisions if any address liability/choice-of-law) before T10 can treat Africa as adequately covered for the CUA's own terms, as distinct from the Enforcement Network's contingency-fee question.
Nigeria, Kenya, and Egypt remain completely unresearched for both workplans, as originally scoped.

2.7 KiB Raw Blame History