4 ms·

My favorite example is: If a purchaser calls a suppler from state Y from state X and ask to buy something. Which laws do I follow? * The purchaser follow laws

My favorite example is: If a purchaser calls a suppler from state Y from state X and ask to buy something. Which laws do I follow? * The purchaser follow laws from state X * The supplier from state follows laws from state Y * We then pay any duties to ship from state Y to state X This is the way things have been done, since, well... forever. No one thinks it's weird if this kind of business is conducted in person or over the phone. Now, with the internet - it's believed that the supplier must now take on the burden of knowing the laws for purchaser - that's kind of strange. The supplier is not operating in country X, so it probably wont be punished by country X. Anyway, as a developer and maintainer of making a fair amount of cross boarder trade. I host my servers in one location, the state in which I operate. Good luck punishing me. The reality is that my only burden is the state in which I operate, otherwise we're interfering with the sovereignty of the state in which I reside... don't think they'll like that. Good luck challenging that one.

munchbunny 7y ago
> The reality is that my only burden is the state in which I operate, otherwise we're interfering with the sovereignty of the state in which I reside... don't think they'll like that. Good luck challenging that one. I mean, that's exactly what's going on. You can choose to follow State Y's laws when serving customers in State Y, or you can choose to not serve customers in State Y. But if you choose to not follow State Y's laws while serving customers in State Y, then State Y can use whatever leverage they can get their hands on to keep you out of State Y. That's State Y flexing their own sovereignty when it comes to protecting their citizens, which is the flipside of your argument about your state protecting you.
cmroanirgo 7y ago
I'd suggest that in your example, the purchaser isn't having all details about himself being recorded and monetized by the supplier, just simply for contacting the supplier: no agreements of trade have been entered into, but even if they had, there's little cause for selling the information to other 3rd parties. Surely the purchaser has some rights to sovereignity?
IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
You can't have two partners in a transaction following different sets of laws. That's why contracts routinely specify a jurisdiction. Otherwise you couldn't even agree on a court to hear your case. In B2B transactions, there are often international standards. Even where the supplier's location is set to be the relevant jurisdiction, this only follows from the assumption that a purchaser of industrial goods tends to have the experience to navigate foreign law. This cannot be assumed for consumers.

munchbunny 7y ago

> The reality is that my only burden is the state in which I operate, otherwise we're interfering with the sovereignty of the state in which I reside... don't think they'll like that. Good luck challenging that one. I mean, that's exactly what's going on. You can choose to follow State Y's laws when serving customers in State Y, or you can choose to not serve customers in State Y. But if you choose to not follow State Y's laws while serving customers in State Y, then State Y can use whatever leverage they can get their hands on to keep you out of State Y. That's State Y flexing their own sovereignty when it comes to protecting their citizens, which is the flipside of your argument about your state protecting you.

cmroanirgo 7y ago

I'd suggest that in your example, the purchaser isn't having all details about himself being recorded and monetized by the supplier, just simply for contacting the supplier: no agreements of trade have been entered into, but even if they had, there's little cause for selling the information to other 3rd parties. Surely the purchaser has some rights to sovereignity?

IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago

You can't have two partners in a transaction following different sets of laws. That's why contracts routinely specify a jurisdiction. Otherwise you couldn't even agree on a court to hear your case. In B2B transactions, there are often international standards. Even where the supplier's location is set to be the relevant jurisdiction, this only follows from the assumption that a purchaser of industrial goods tends to have the experience to navigate foreign law. This cannot be assumed for consumers.