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.
An Australian lungfish (Neoceratodus forsteri)
Australian Cattle Dog
Australian Kelpie
Three types of crutches: (A) axillary crutch; (B) Lofstrand or forearm crutch; (C) Canadian or elbow ...
Core Concepts in Sociology, Second Canadian Edition, 2/E (Lindsey, Beach, Ravelli)
A company purchased 26 desks for $240 each and 18 chairs for $59 each. Compute the total ...