Multiple Choice
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?
A) Since the plaintiff lives in Australia,and the defendant is based in Canada,a third neutral country would be the appropriate jurisdiction.
B) 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.
C) 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.
D) 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.
E) Since the company is Canadian,the most convenient jurisdiction would be the province in which the Canadian company resides.
Correct Answer:
Verified
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q18: Explain the concept of long-arm statutes.
Q29: Describe the concept of cybersquatting.
Q95: A factor in determining jurisdiction with regards
Q97: With regard to the internet,which of the
Q98: Electronic commerce consists of:<br>A)the purchase and sale
Q100: In which of the following ways can
Q102: Canadian courts do not provide for the
Q103: Whether a contract or another form of
Q104: The test for simplifying the process of
Q122: Discuss the validity of online transactions,and the