BUSI 301
DISCUSSION ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS
replies of at least 100 words each to 2 classmates’ threads. Each thread and each reply must
reference at least 2 scholarly sources other than the course textbook, cited in current APA format
(including both in-text citations and a reference list). You must also support each thread and
reply with thoughtful analysis (considering assumptions, analyzing implications, and
comparing/contrasting concepts) and biblical worldview integration throughout.
For each reply, read the threads posted by your classmates and reply to a thread that presented a
different conclusion than your thread. Note that comments such as “I like what you said,” “that is
a good comment,” and “I disagree with your comment” do not constitute complete replies.
Rather, state reasons that support your conclusions with additional and/or alternate
research/ideas/thoughts.
I find the forum shopping to be ethical. Although as a consumer I am not in favor of it
as it does give the business the homecourt advantage. But as a business owner it would
be in the best interest of said business and the duty of a business owner is to protect
the company in the long run. The best practice would be to operate with high moral
standards while holding everyone who works for your company accountable for their
actions. This would include but is not limited to social media, emails and general
conduct and behaviors.
I believe that courts should enforce these forum selection clauses. This would ensure
that the clauses are not misleading, and everyone adheres to the same standards
across the board. In the case of a social media model like Facebook, because they have
so many users spread abroad, this is a must have. They have users literally across the
country and even with the highest ethical standard practice in place it is impossible to
police every aspect and a company of this magnitude will most assuredly be faced with
some type of court litigation. It would not be in their best interest to bypass the forum
selection clause. If they did not have this clause in place, they would most definitely be
subject to the jurisdiction of every state that they have users. This would not only prove
to be economically stressful, but they would be at the mercy of every state and their
rules, guidelines and regulations. Having their users sign the clause upfront is a very
ethical as they are made aware of their practices and in the event, this does not work
for the user they (Facebook) have the option to not allow said user to use their
platform. The consumer is given the option up front.
Reply: at least 100 words
In terms of equal opportunity and fairness to the average citizen, the act of forum
shopping is ethical. As a citizen can choose which state they live in and which law they abide
under, so too can business owners choose where their headquarters reside and the accompanying
legislation.
Enforcement of forum selection clauses should not be endmost imposed by courts. These
agreements are typically public-private contracts and should not take precedence over procedural
laws for determining the validity of business-to-consumer contracts. Facebook's forum selection
clause sneakily hinders potential legal confrontations. This clause is unnegotiated voluntold
personal jurisdiction: One decides (Facebook), the other unwittingly accepts (the consumer)
(Harris, 2019). As well, it assumes the intelligence of the general population. It is mixed into an
agreement written for the intellect of a counselor and is often too long for the target customer.
While being wary of such attempts and keeping a mindful spirit is the job of the plaintiff (James
1:5, NIV), it is an “abusive clause[s]…virtually never negotiated, and often unsuspectingly
imposed on the weak party" (Monestier, 2019). Governance to the people must remain
ubiquitous. No business or government entity should gain this kind of non-negotiable command.
Often, businesses employ social media platforms to build networks and a customer basis.
Declining Facebook's terms could hinder growth. On the other hand, the exclusion of a forum
selection clause could subject Facebook to all state jurisdictions, including transnational. Due to
the fact, Facebook has users all over the United States. The inclusion of a forum selection clause
is necessary. That would ensure the company has a set of laws to obey. Without any forum
selection clause, the complexities of multiple legal authorities would be too much to bear. A
business should be able to freely forum shop. However, an option for forum selection clause
negotiation under strong reason could be a solution to the current public policy handlings.
Reply: at least 100 words
I find the forum shopping to be ethical. Although as a consumer I am not in
favor of it as it does give the business the homecourt advantage. But as a
business owner it would be in the best interest of said business and the duty
of a business owner is to protect the company in the long run. The best
practice would be to operate with high moral standards while holding
everyone who works for your company accountable for their actions. This
would include but is not limited to social media, emails and general conduct
and behaviors.
I believe that courts should enforce these forum selection clauses. This
would ensure that the clauses are not misleading, and everyone adheres to
the same standards across the board. In the case of a social media model
like Facebook, because they have so many users spread abroad, this is a
must have. They have users literally across the country and even with the
highest ethical standard practice in place it is impossible to police every
aspect and a company of this magnitude will most assuredly be faced with
some type of court litigation. It would not be in their best interest to bypass
the forum selection clause. If they did not have this clause in place, they
would most definitely be subject to the jurisdiction of every state that they
have users. This would not only prove to be economically stressful, but they
would be at the mercy of every state and their rules, guidelines and
regulations. Having their users sign the clause upfront is a very ethical as
they are made aware of their practices and in the event, this does not work
for the user they (Facebook) have the option to not allow said user to use
their platform. The consumer is given the option up front.
Reply: at least 100 words
Halo,
I loved reading your arguments, and despite your post having a different conclusion to
mine, I agree that all parties in a forum shopping should utilize moral standards to reach a fair
and favorable verdict. According to Biblical ethics, unfair and dishonest dealings are sinful and
unfavorable in God’s eyes (Deuteronomy 25:14-16). I think that the lack of moral standards
rendered the entire forum shopping unethical, notwithstanding. According to American Bar
Association (2014), judicial ethics plays an integral role in ensuring that all judges uphold and
exercise the integrity, impartiality, and independence of the court to facilitate fair rulings. Indeed,
the courts should enforce the forum selection clauses to ensure the applicability of fair ruling and
proper scrutiny over the rendered verdict to resolve disputes (Cornell Law School, n.d.). Besides,
when courts enforce the forum selection clause, all parties (the defendant and plaintiff) will have
confidence in the court’s ruling. Facebook should have a forum selection agreement because its
users are spread across different geographical locals.
References
American Bar Association (2014). Promoting the Independence, Integrity, and Impartiality of the
Judiciary.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/judicial/publications/judges_journal/2019/fall/promoting-
independence-integrity-and-impartiality-the-judiciary/
Cornell Law School (n.d.). Forum Selection Clause.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/forum_selection_clause#:~:text=A%20contractual%20agree
ment%20that%20designates,a%20%22forum%20selection%20clause.%22&text=Thus%2C%20a
%20forum%20selection%20clause,power%20to%20resolve%20a%20dispute.
Deuteronomy 25:14-16.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2025%3A14-16&version=NIV
In terms of equal opportunity and fairness to the average citizen, the act of forum
shopping is ethical. As a citizen can choose which state they live in and which law they abide
under, so too can business owners choose where their headquarters reside and the accompanying
legislation.
Enforcement of forum selection clauses should not be endmost imposed by courts. These
agreements are typically public-private contracts and should not take precedence over procedural
laws for determining the validity of business-to-consumer contracts. Facebook’s forum selection
clause sneakily hinders potential legal confrontations. This clause is unnegotiated voluntold
personal jurisdiction: One decides (Facebook), the other unwittingly accepts (the consumer)
(Harris, 2019). As well, it assumes the intelligence of the general population. It is mixed into an
agreement written for the intellect of a counselor and is often too long for the target customer.
While being wary of such attempts and keeping a mindful spirit is the job of the plaintiff (James
1:5, NIV), it is an “abusive clause[s]…virtually never negotiated, and often unsuspectingly
imposed on the weak party” (Monestier, 2019). Governance to the people must remain
ubiquitous. No business or government entity should gain this kind of non-negotiable command.
Often, businesses employ social media platforms to build networks and a customer basis.
Declining Facebook’s terms could hinder growth. On the other hand, the exclusion of a forum
selection clause could subject Facebook to all state jurisdictions, including transnational. Due to
the fact, Facebook has users all over the United States. The inclusion of a forum selection clause
is necessary. That would ensure the company has a set of laws to obey. Without any forum
selection clause, the complexities of multiple legal authorities would be too much to bear. A
business should be able to freely forum shop. However, an option for forum selection clause
negotiation under strong reason could be a solution to the current public policy handlings.
Reply: at least 100 words
Hi,
While I believe that forum shopping is unethical to the user and consumer, your post argues that
forum shopping is ethical. You have mentioned that it is ethical because it ensures fairness to an
average citizen. But I think it is unethical because it gives the plaintiff a fair advantage over the
defendant, making it easier for the former to win a court case. The bible is against actions that
benefit one person at the expense of another suffering (Deuteronomy 25:14-16). I can’t entirely
agree with you that courts should not enforce the forum selection clause. The ultimate goal for
courts is to render verdicts that are fair and impartial. The courts are likely to be manipulated to
render improper and unfair judgments without the forum selection clause enforcement.
According to Coyle and Richardson (2021), forum selection enforceability will ensure that the
verdict is made in good faith.
References
Coyle, J., & Richardson, K. C. (2021). Enforcing Inbound Forum Selection Clauses in State
Court. Ariz. St. LJ, 53, 65.
Deuteronomy 25:14-16.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2025%3A14-16&version=NIV
