More than two hundred years after its birth, the United States of America is still a magnet for immigrants. All over Europe and Asia, people still wish to immigrate here to obtain the best possible education, the greatest business opportunities and to succeed. The other reason is that the United States Constitution is, in reality, only second to the Tenth Commandments as one of the greatest sets of legal regulations ever created. Even though the Constitution can be vague in places, the framework it sets out has established a legal system in the United States that is second to none. The legal systems of foreign countries which which do not have the protections of our Constitution often involve laws which would shock many Americans. Here are some good reasons to stipulate in your business contracts to the laws of one of the states of the United States.
1. Service of Process.
In the United States, service of process is accomplished by a process server who is generally required to hand you the paper reflecting a lawsuit. Sometimes there is a possibility for posting the process on your door, or handing it to a relative who lives with you. However, it is the rare circumstance that process can simply be accomplished by publication without prior efforts to effectuate service. Nonetheless, service by publication, and posting outside of the courthouse is often the norm in foreign countries. Imagine if the only way that you could learn about a potential lawsuit is if you are lucky enough to be walking past the courthouse and see your name on the bulletin board. To Americans, this may seem ridiculous but it is, in fact, reality in many countries.
In many countries, whether the Court can obtain jurisdiction can be based on citizenship. Here, in the United States, jurisdiction is most often based upon “minimum contacts” – – the idea that you must have some connection to the forum state before you are sued there. There is a stark contrast between countries who apply jurisdiction based upon citizenship than the United States in which it is based upon “minimum contacts.” In sum, for countries that apply a citizenship analysis, there is no reason for there to be minimum contacts. In fact, it doesn’t matter whether the individual and/or corporation has been present in that particular jurisdiction for many years since citizenship is the test. This leads to the anomalous result that two citizens of a foreign country, living in the United States, who have a child can make that child subject to jurisdiction of a foreign country even when the child has never even been to that country ! To American lawyers, this may seem silly but it is, in fact, the norm in many countries.
3. Ex Parte Hearings.
Most of the time, in the United States, the law requires that both sides be present at a hearing. Not so in other countries. In certain foreign countries there is ample opportunity for one side to approach the Judge alone. This is often done informally in the courthouse or even on the street. What may seem preposterous to Americans, can be routine in other countries.
4. Access to Court Files.
In the United States, anyone can pull up an internet website and search court files. Sometimes, files are protected for privacy reasons, particularly in family law cases. However, most of the litigation in the United States Federal courts is available for review by anyone. Do you think that this is the case in every country in the world? It is not. In many countries, the court file is not open to a review by anyone. In fact, if you wish to inspect the court file, often you must file a motion with the court which has the discretion to deny you access. So much for free speech!
In the United States, in the typical lawsuit both parties are allowed to discover facts about the other party’s case. That is often done with depositions, interrogatories and document requests. Parties are required to produce documents and show them to the other side prior to trial. You would think that this practice would be routine. This is not the case either. In fact, in many countries there is no such thing as discovery. There are countries in which the Judge conducts discovery if there is discovery conducted at all. And, guess what? If the Judge is conducting the discovery, there is no opportunity to complain about it. You just have to presume that the Judge conducted adequate discovery procedures and that the information that the Judge discovered was accurate. There is no such thing as a “Motion to Compel.”
6. Restrictions on Speech.
In some countries, you are not allowed to mention the names of your clients or witnesses. Thus, at a deposition or similar proceeding it is entirely permissible for the witness to decline to answer certain questions on the grounds of “privacy.” There is simply no way to get around this and the person being questioned may, in certain instances, be subject to criminal penalties. Imagine being subject to criminal penalties for saying the wrong thing! This is a concept that is totally foreign to Americans.
Companies which do business abroad would be well-advised to include provisions in their agreements which provide for the application of American law and jurisdiction in the United States. Otherwise, there is a possibility that the company could be subject to jurisdiction in a foreign country, with foreign laws, which do not contain the familiar concepts of the United States Constitution.
 The actual state chosen is dependent upon the type of contracts and the lawyers involved.