Research On The Jurisdiction Over Foreign-related B2C Contract Dispute

With the development of internet technology and the expansion of economic globalization, foreign-related online consumption is becoming increasingly popular. In accordance with the differences of subjects, it can be divided into two categories: B2C mode and C2Cmode. As a developed kind of foreign-related online consumption, B2C online consumption brings people both convenience and various disputes, and contract dispute is one of them. If one party sues on a contract dispute, the court should ascertain the jurisdiction before entering into hearing procedures. However, due to the differences of internet space and physical space, the existing rules cannot be directly applied.Therefore, we need to explore the jurisdiction over the foreign-related B2C contract dispute.With the methods of case analysis and comparative analysis, this article includes five parts. In the first part, the author uses an escalating structure. Firstly, this part respectively elaborates B2Ccontract and foreign-related B2Ccontract, next, it discusses the reasons and characters of the dispute towards foreign-related B2C contract, finally, it summaries the definition and significance of the jurisdiction over foreign-related B2C contract dispute. The second part is the analysis of controversies of the jurisdiction over foreign-related B2C contract, including the manifestation and reasons of those controversies. The third part is the discussion of typical theories of jurisdiction over foreign-related B2C contract dispute. Firstly, in accordance with the contents of these theories, the author divided them into three categories, the first one is theories that focus on the independence of internet, the second one is theories that focus on the technicality,and the third one is theories that advocate the application of traditional jurisdiction rules.Then, the author gives comments on these theories' advantages and disadvantages. In the fourth part, aiming at typical countries and international organizations, the article first introduces some specific rules for jurisdiction over foreign-related B2C contract disputes. The countries include Swiss and the United States, the international organizations includes the European Union and the Hague Conference on Private International Law. The relevant rules in their statutes are home jurisdiction rule, the minimum contacts rule and the contractual jurisdiction rule. When talking about the rule of the United States, the author uses these following cases: Aero Toy Store, LLC v.Grieve, Butler v.Beer Across America, and Christopher Spechat etc. v. Netscape Communications Corporation and America Online, Inc. Besides, this part gives comments on these rules and summarizes their similarity and differences. In the last part,the author focuses on China's current statutes about jurisdictions over foreign-related B2Ccontract dispute. Firstly, the author introduces the relevant legislations of jurisdiction over foreign-related B2C contract,and then summarizes the defects of those legislations; finally, the author puts forward some suggestions on the improvement of China's legislations about this jurisdiction.