Abstract
Choice of court agreements are contractual agreements where parties exercise autonomy to agree on a forum to which the parties are voluntarily subject to should a dispute arise from their commercial transactions or other civil relationships. Exclusivity is an issue concerning how a choice of court agreement is to be enforced. Presumption of exclusivity is a doctrine aimed at ensuring an effective enforcement of the agreement as such. Acceptance of the doctrine has become a growing trend internationally, as illustrated by the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. In American courts, choice of court agreements are generally presumed valid and enforceable. The underlying rationale of this presumption, however, does not always extend to exclusivity of the agreement. The resistance in the United States to the presumption of exclusivity is obviously at odds with the general practice in the international community. This Article argues that the legal framework of forum selection in the U.S. needs to be reshaped, and the exclusivity should be set as a default rule for choice of court agreements.
Recommended Citation
Zhang, Mo
(2025)
"Exculsivity of Choice of Court Agreements: Party Autonomy in Forum Selection,"
University of Memphis Law Review: Vol. 55:
Iss.
2, Article 8.
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/um-law-review/vol55/iss2/8