tegwick
11f2dc3a6d
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>
28 lines
2.7 KiB
Markdown
28 lines
2.7 KiB
Markdown
# 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.
|