Damages for Breach of a Forum Selection Clause

IF 1.3 3区 社会学 Q3 BUSINESS
Tanya J. Monestier
{"title":"Damages for Breach of a Forum Selection Clause","authors":"Tanya J. Monestier","doi":"10.1111/ablj.12183","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>When a party breaches a forum selection clause, a court will normally dismiss the action, therefore forcing the breaching party to re-file in the appropriate forum, or the court will transfer the proceedings to the chosen court. Either way, the nonbreaching party appears to have gotten what he wanted: litigation to proceed before the designated court. However, to get there, the nonbreaching party had to outlay significant expenditures in the form of attorneys' fees. Are these attorneys' fees recoverable as damages? Should they be?</p><p>This Article argues that attorneys' fees associated with remedying a breach of a forum selection clause should be recoverable as damages flowing from the breach. Without the prospect of having to pay damages, the breaching party would be permitted to breach a forum selection clause with impunity. In other words, there is no downside to breaching a forum selection clause. Best case scenario, the non-designated court retains jurisdiction; worst case scenario, the breaching party is “sent” to the contractually-designated forum.</p><p>Awarding attorneys' fees for breach of a forum selection clause does not run afoul of the American Rule, which requires each side to bear their own costs and attorneys' fees. This is because attorneys' fees for breach of a forum selection clause are a measure of direct damages—and not consequential damages—and therefore do not implicate the American Rule.</p>","PeriodicalId":54186,"journal":{"name":"American Business Law Journal","volume":"58 2","pages":"271-325"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/ablj.12183","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Business Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ablj.12183","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

When a party breaches a forum selection clause, a court will normally dismiss the action, therefore forcing the breaching party to re-file in the appropriate forum, or the court will transfer the proceedings to the chosen court. Either way, the nonbreaching party appears to have gotten what he wanted: litigation to proceed before the designated court. However, to get there, the nonbreaching party had to outlay significant expenditures in the form of attorneys' fees. Are these attorneys' fees recoverable as damages? Should they be?

This Article argues that attorneys' fees associated with remedying a breach of a forum selection clause should be recoverable as damages flowing from the breach. Without the prospect of having to pay damages, the breaching party would be permitted to breach a forum selection clause with impunity. In other words, there is no downside to breaching a forum selection clause. Best case scenario, the non-designated court retains jurisdiction; worst case scenario, the breaching party is “sent” to the contractually-designated forum.

Awarding attorneys' fees for breach of a forum selection clause does not run afoul of the American Rule, which requires each side to bear their own costs and attorneys' fees. This is because attorneys' fees for breach of a forum selection clause are a measure of direct damages—and not consequential damages—and therefore do not implicate the American Rule.

违反论坛选择条款的损害赔偿
当一方违反法院选择条款时,法院通常会驳回诉讼,从而迫使违约方在适当的法院重新提起诉讼,或者法院将诉讼移交给选定的法院。无论哪种方式,未达成协议的一方似乎得到了他想要的:在指定法院进行诉讼。然而,为了实现这一目标,非缔约方不得不以律师费的形式支出巨额开支。这些律师费作为损害赔偿可收回吗?应该是吗?本条认为,与补救违反法院选择条款有关的律师费应作为违约产生的损害赔偿金予以追回。在不必支付损害赔偿的情况下,违约方将被允许违反法院选择条款而不受惩罚。换言之,违反论坛选择条款没有任何不利影响。在最佳情况下,非指定法院保留管辖权;在最坏的情况下,违约方被“送到”合同指定的法院。因违反法院选择条款而判给律师费并不违反美国规则,该规则要求双方承担各自的费用和律师费。这是因为违反法院选择条款的律师费是衡量直接损害的标准,而不是间接损害,因此不涉及美国规则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
16.70%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: The ABLJ is a faculty-edited, double blind peer reviewed journal, continuously published since 1963. Our mission is to publish only top quality law review articles that make a scholarly contribution to all areas of law that impact business theory and practice. We search for those articles that articulate a novel research question and make a meaningful contribution directly relevant to scholars and practitioners of business law. The blind peer review process means legal scholars well-versed in the relevant specialty area have determined selected articles are original, thorough, important, and timely. Faculty editors assure the authors’ contribution to scholarship is evident. We aim to elevate legal scholarship and inform responsible business decisions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信