A Study On The Conflict Of Value Orientations In The Determination Of The Validity Of Jurisdiction Clause In B2C Contracts

B2C e-commerce has increasingly become an inseparable part of people's daily lives.Although e-commerce has brought rich choices and great convenience to consumers,disputes are still inevitable.In order to deal with those disputes,electronic consumer contracts often contain jurisdictional clauses.Since the electronic consumer contract is unilaterally formulated by business,and the consumer cannot change the contract content due to insufficient bargaining power,the jurisdiction clause is often unfavorable for the consumer to seek judicial relief.However,it is also often believed that the existence of the jurisdiction clause in electronic consumer contract is conducive to reducing the litigation risk and cost of the business,which can promote the prosperity of the global market.Therefore,the determination of the validity of the jurisdiction clause in electronic consumer contract presents two conflicting value orientations.The one is protecting consumers and the other is protecting businesses.The relevant rules of the EU on the validity of the jurisdiction clause in electronic consumer contracts take both the value orientations into consideration.The Brussels I(Recast)has a looser requirement for formal validity of jurisdiction clauses in electronic consumer contracts,which is conducive to recognizing the validity of electronic consumer contracts.However,the rule that the law of designated court is applicable to the substantive validity of jurisdiction clause adopted by Brussels I(Recast)is not sufficient to protect consumers.Fortunately,the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts provides consumers with some protection.More importantly,Brussels Regulation I(Recast)adopts the principle that jurisdiction clause in consumer contract should be deemed invalid,which protects consumers to the greatest extent.It is obvious that the EU rule of the validity of the jurisdiction clause in electronic consumer contract is quite strict.And we can see that EU' value orientation is to protect consumers.The United States has adopted the policy to hold a jurisdiction clause prima facie enforceable subj ect to limited exceptions,and this rule is applicable in B2C commerce.The United States in principle recognizes the validity of the jurisdiction clause in electronic consumer contract,unless it is materially unfair or inconvenient to the consumer.And the United States has taken a strict interpretation of major injustices,serious inconveniences,and other unenforceable reasons.This attitude adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States directly shows the value orientation of protecting the businesses.However,the assumption that approving the validity of jurisdiction clause in electronic consumer contract can promote the prosperity of the global market is itself a false proposition.In e-commerce,the risk of litigation faced by the businesses is originally low.Even without the existence of jurisdiction clause,the overseas expansion of the businesses will not be affected.The litigation risk and cost of consumer disputes should be borne by the operating company rather than the consumer Therefore,when considering the validity of jurisdiction clause in electronic consumer contract,more attention should be paid to the protection of consumer.China's legislation on the jurisdiction clause in electronic consumer contracts is relatively rough and does not provide sufficient protection for consumers.Judging from the investigation of China's judicial practice,the Chinese courts have a relatively friendly attitude towards the jurisdiction clause in electronic consumer contract,and the consideration of consumer litigation convenience is insufficient.Therefore,in the future legislation,China may learn from the EU's rule on jurisdiction clause in consumer contract and strengthen the protection for consumer.