COMM 393 Chapter Notes - Chapter Case: Forum Selection Clause, King County, Washington, Fiduciary
COMM 393 Rudder v. Microsoft Corp. Case Briefs
PROCEEDING UNDER the Class Proceedings Act, 1992
[1997] O.J. No. 3778, 106 OTC 381, 47 CCLT (2d) 168, 40 CPC (4th) 394, 2 CPR (4th) 474
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Judgment: October 8, 1999
Facts
• The defendant Microsoft is requesting a permanent sta of the plaitiffs lass poeedig o the gouds
that the plaintiffs have agreed to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts in King County in the State of
Washington, and that the proposed province of Ontario is not the appropriate forum for any proceedings
• The plaitiffs lass atio iludes all pesos esidet i Caada ho susied fo the poisio of
Internet access or information or services from, or through, MSN, The Microsoft Network, since
“eptee , 5 estiated , ad laims damages for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary
duty, misappropriation, and punitive damages in the total of $75,000,000.00.
o Served to Microsoft on January 5, 1998
• The plaitiffs euest the out ot gie edee to the fou seletio lause ontained within the
Member Agreement of MSN, which all parties must sign before any use of MSN is allowed
o Plaintiffs only read portions of the Member Agreement, and thus had no notice of such a clause
osideed as fie pit
o The Washington courts are not appropriate
• The plaintiffs admitted that the entire Member Agreement is readily viewable by scrolling, and that
Rudder scanned through the agreement, and did not read it all, only caring about potential costs
• All terms of the Member Agreement are displayed in the same format, save for some capital letters, and
there are no physical differences between terms
• The Membership Agreement also requires the potential member to accept multiple times, and that there
is a otie that If ou lik I Agee ithout reading the membership agreement, you are still agreeing to
e oud…et
• All ees of M“N ee euied to akoledge thei aeptae of the tes likig I Agee o
the screen
• The Member Agreement is also given to potential members through individual computer disks, or via the
Internet
Issues
• “hould the fou seletio lause e upheld?
o Is the fou seletio lause i the Mee Ageeet osued i a a that it ust
specifically be brought to the attention of the party accepting the terms?
o Should the plaintiffs be bound to the clause even if they did not know it existed?
• Is Ontario, Canada a reasonable forum of conduct of proceedings?
Reasons
Law: The Class Proceedings Act of 1992 allows for class action lawsuits
Law: “araia v. Oeani Mindoro 1996 – forum selection clauses should be treated the same as arbitration
agreements
• a out is ot oud to gie effet to a elusie juisditio lause, ut that the choice of the parties
should e espeted uless thee is stog ause to oeide the ageeet
• the ude of shoig the stog ause is o the plaitiff
• Eleftheria The Cargo Oers . Eleftheria The – English case that sets the factors that a court will
consider in determining whether a forum selection clause in an agreement should be enforced
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
3778, 106 otc 381, 47 cclt (2d) 168, 40 cpc (4th) 394, 2 cpr (4th) 474. The defendant microsoft is requesting a permanent sta(cid:455) of the plai(cid:374)tiffs(cid:859) (cid:272)lass p(cid:396)o(cid:272)eedi(cid:374)g o(cid:374) the g(cid:396)ou(cid:374)ds that the plaintiffs have agreed to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts in king county in the state of. Washington, and that the proposed province of ontario is not the appropriate forum for any proceedings. The plai(cid:374)tiffs(cid:859) (cid:272)lass a(cid:272)tio(cid:374) i(cid:374)(cid:272)ludes (cid:862)all pe(cid:396)so(cid:374)s (cid:396)eside(cid:374)t i(cid:374) ca(cid:374)ada (cid:449)ho su(cid:271)s(cid:272)(cid:396)i(cid:271)ed fo(cid:396) the p(cid:396)o(cid:448)isio(cid:374) of. Internet access or information or services from, or through, msn, the microsoft network, since. Epte(cid:373)(cid:271)e(cid:396) (cid:1005), (cid:1005)(cid:1013)(cid:1013)5 (cid:894)esti(cid:373)ated (cid:1012)(cid:1013),(cid:1004)(cid:1004)(cid:1004)(cid:895)(cid:863) a(cid:374)d (cid:272)laims damages for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation, and punitive damages in the total of ,000,000. 00. The plai(cid:374)tiffs (cid:396)e(cid:395)uest the (cid:272)ou(cid:396)t (cid:374)ot gi(cid:448)e (cid:272)(cid:396)ede(cid:374)(cid:272)e to the (cid:862)fo(cid:396)u(cid:373) sele(cid:272)tio(cid:374) (cid:272)lause(cid:863) (cid:272)ontained within the. The plaintiffs admitted that the entire member agreement is readily viewable by scrolling, and that.
