From: "Price, Keri" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 09:17:15 -0500 Here is some language that the Library of Congress has been able to use in some Foreign License agreements: "The parties may employ nonbinding mediation to help resolve a dispute if all parties agree to mediation, the choice of a neutral mediator, and any other aspects of the process. The parties are not bound to any country's laws or rules on mediation." Keri Price Keri L. Price Special Collections Coordinator U.S./Anglo Division 101 Independence Ave., S.E. Washington, DC 20540-4270 Tel: 202-707-9497 Fax: 202-252-3347 -----Original Message----- From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 08:35:55 -0500 Forwarded from another list for any liblicense-l comment and reply. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jan Clark <[log in to unmask]> Date: Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 5:14 AM Subject: Law clauses in licences To: [log in to unmask] Can anyone tell me how they handle foreign law clauses in site licences please? Our normal procedure is to ask publishers if they will change the stated law or remain silent on the subject (allowing us to cross out the clause). In most cases publishers are happy to do this, but occasionally we come across a publisher who is reluctant to do this. We are currently experiencing this with Thieme, which may result in our not being able to subscribe to a particular journal that has been requested by a department. The clause mentioning law states: "6.3 The provisions of substantive law applicable within the Federal Republic of Germany shall apply exclusively, and the principles of the conflict of laws under private international law, which would justify the applicability of foreign law, shall not apply." Our logic is that we can't agree to abide by laws we don't understand - but are we being super-cautious? What do other people do? Thanks Jan Jan Clark Robinson Library Newcastle University Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HQ