Author Question: A Canadian company published an article on the internet defaming an Australian resident. The ... (Read 31 times)

natalie2426 · **on:** Aug 7, 2021

A Canadian company published an article on the internet defaming an Australian resident. The Australian resident brought action against the Canadian company. With regards to internet jurisdiction, which of the following statements is true?
◦ Since the plaintiff lives in Australia, and the defendant is based in Canada, a third neutral country would be the appropriate jurisdiction.
◦ Since the plaintiff lives in Australia, and the harm was done in that country, there is a sufficient connection between the defamation and that country, and the case would be heard in an Australian court.
◦ Since the company is Canadian, the most convenient jurisdiction would be the province in which the Canadian company resides.
◦ Since the plaintiff lives in Australia, and the harm was done in that country, there is no connection between the defamation and Canada, and appropriately there is no jurisdiction.
◦ The Canadian company's appropriate defence would be to point out that it is impossible to know and comply with the laws of every jurisdiction, and therefore it is not liable.

cadimas · **Reply #1 on:** Aug 7, 2021

A FREE account is required to view all solutions!

Lorsum iprem. Lorsus sur ipci. Lorsem sur iprem. Lorsum sur ipdi, lorsem sur ipci. Lorsum sur iprium, valum sur ipci et, vala sur ipci. Lorsem sur ipci, lorsa sur iprem. Valus sur ipdi. Lorsus sur iprium nunc, valem sur iprium. Valem sur ipdi. Lorsa sur iprium. Lorsum sur iprium. Valem sur ipdi. Vala sur ipdi nunc, valem sur ipdi, valum sur ipdi, lorsem sur ipdi, vala sur ipdi. Valem sur iprem nunc, lorsa sur iprium. Valum sur ipdi et, lorsus sur ipci. Valem sur iprem. Valem sur ipci. Lorsa sur iprium. Lorsem sur ipci, valus sur iprem. Lorsem sur iprem nunc, valus sur iprium.

Answer Preview

Only 25% of students answer this correctly