#mandatory binding arbitration

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Kickstarting the "Chokepoint Capitalism" audiobook

My next book is Chokepoint Capitalism, co-written with the brilliant copyright expert Rebecca Giblin: it’s an action-oriented investigation into how tech and entertainment monopolies have destroyed creators’ livelihoods, with detailed, shovel-ready plans to unrig creative labor markets and get artists paid.

http://www.beacon.org/Chokepoint-Capitalism-P1856.aspx

Ironically, the very phenomenon this book describes — “chokepoint capitalism” — is endemic to book publishing, and in audiobook publishing, it’s in its terminal phase. There’s no way to market an audiobook to a mass audience without getting trapped in a chokepoint, which is why we’re kickstarting a direct-to-listener edition:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/doctorow/chokepoint-capitalism-an-audiobook-amazon-wont-sell

What is “chokepoint capitalism?” It’s when a multinational monopolist (or cartel) locks up audiences inside a system that they control, and uses that control to gouge artists, creating toll booths between creators and their audiences.

For example, take Audible: the Amazon division controls the vast majority of audiobook sales in the world — in some genres, they have a 90%+ market-share. Audible requires every seller — big publishers and self-publishers alike — to use their proprietary DRM as a condition of selling on the platform.

That’s a huge deal. DRM is useless at preventing copyright infringement (all of Audible’s titles can be downloaded for free from various shady corners of the internet), but it is wildly effective at locking in audiences and seizing power over creators. Under laws like the USA’s Digital Millennium Copyright Act, giving someone a tool to remove DRM is a felony, punishable by 5 years in prison and a $500k fine.

This means that when you sell your audiobooks on Audible, you lock them to Audible’s platform…forever. If another company offers you a better deal for your creative work and you switch, your audience can’t follow you to the new company without giving up all the audiobooks they’ve bought to date. That’s a lot to ask of listeners!

Amazon knows this: as their power over creators and publishers has grown, the company has turned the screw on them, starting with the most powerless group, the independent creators who rely on Amazon’s self-serve ACX system to publish their work.

In late 2020, a group of ACX authors discovered that Amazon had been systematically stealing their wages, to the tune of an estimated $100,000,000. The resulting Audiblegate scandal has only gotten worse since, and while the affected authors are fighting back, they’re hamstrung by Amazon’s other unfair practices, like forcing creators to accept binding arbitration waivers on their way through the chokepoint:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/11/03/somebody-will/#acx

I have always had a no-DRM policy for my ebooks and audiobooks. Amazon’s Kindle store — another wildly dominant part of the books ecosystem — has always allowed authors to choose whether or not to apply DRM, but in Audible — where Amazon had a commanding lead from the start, thanks to their anti-competitive acquisition of the formerly independent Audible company — it is mandatory.

Because Audible won’t carry my DRM-free audiobooks, audiobook publishers won’t pay for them. I don’t blame them — being locked out of the market where 90%+ of audiobooks are sold is a pretty severe limitation. For a decade now, I’ve produced my own audiobooks, using amazing narrators like @wilwheaton​, Amber Benson and @neil-gaiman​.

These had sold modestly-but-well, recouping my cash outlays to fairly compensate the readers, directors and engineers involved, but they were still niche products, sold at independent outlets like Libro.fm, Downpour, and my own online storefront:

https://craphound.com/shop

But that all changed in 2020, with the publication of Attack Surface, an adult standalone novel set in the world of my bestselling YA series Little Brother. That time, I decided to use Kickstarter to pre-sell the audio- and ebooks and see if my readers would help me show other creators that we could stand up to Audible’s bullying.

Holy shit, did it ever work. The Kickstarter for the Attack Surface audiobook turned into the most successful audiobook crowdfunding campaign in world history, grossing over $267,000:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/doctorow/attack-surface-audiobook-for-the-third-little-brother-book

Which brings me to today, and our new Kickstarter for Chokepoint Capitalism. We produced an independent audiobook, tapping the incomparable Stefan Rudnicki (winner of uncountable awards, narrator of 1000+ books, including Ender’s Game) to read it.

We’re preselling the audiobook ($20), ebook ($15), hardcover ($27), and bundles mixing and matching all three (there’s also bulk discounts). There’s also the option to buy copies that we’ll donate to libraries on your behalf. We’ve got pins and stickers — and, for five lucky high-rollers, we’ve got a very special artwork called: “The Annotated Robert Bork.”

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/doctorow/chokepoint-capitalism-an-audiobook-amazon-wont-sell

Robert Bork was the far-right extremist who convinced Ronald Reagan to dismantle antitrust protection in America, and then exported the idea to the rest of the world (Reagan tried to reward him with a Supreme Court seat, but Bork’s had been Nixon’s Solicitor General and his complicity in Nixon’s crimes cost him the confirmation).

Bork’s dangerous antitrust nonsense destroyed the world as we knew it, giving us the monopolies that have wrecked the climate, labor protections and political integrity. These monopolies have captured every sector of the economy — from beer and pro-wrestling to health insurance and finance:

https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/learn/monopoly-by-the-numbers

“The Annotated Robert Bork” is a series of five shadow-boxes containing two-page spreads excised from Bork’s 1978 pro-monopoly manifesto

The Antitrust Paradox

, which we have mounted on stiff card and hand-annotated with our red pens. The resulting package is a marvel of museum glass and snark.

[Image ID: A prototype of ‘The Annotated Robert Bork]

Bork’s legacy is monopolistic markets in every sector of the world’s economy, including the creative industries. Chokepoint Capitalism systematically explores how tech and entertainment giants have rigged music streaming, newspapers, book publishing, the film industry, TV, video streaming, and others, steadily eroding creators’ wages even as their work generated more money for the monopolists’ shareholders.

But just as importantly, our book proposes things we can do right now to unrig creative labor markets. Drawing on both existing, successful projects and promising new experiments, we set out shovel-ready ideas for creators, artists’ groups, fans, technologists, startups, and local, regional and national governments.

Artists aren’t in this struggle alone. As we write in the book, chokepoint capitalism is the final stage of high-tech capitalism, which atomizes workers and locks in customers and then fleeces workers as a condition of reaching their audiences. It’s a form of exploitation that is practiced wherever industries concentrate, which is why creators can’t succeed by rooting for Big Tech against Big Content or vice-versa.

It’s also why creative workers should be in solidarity with all workers — squint a little at Audible’s chokepoint shakedown and you’ll recognize the silhouette of the gig economy, from Uber to Doordash to the poultry and meat-packing industries.

40 years of official pro-monopoly policy has brought the world to the brink of collapse, as monopoly profits and concentrated power allowed an ever-decreasing minority of the ultra-rich to extract ever-increasing fortunes from ever-more-precarious workers. It’s a flywheel: more monopoly creates more profits creates more power creates more monopoly.

The solutions we propose in Chokepoint Capitalism are specific to creative labor, but they’re also examples of the kinds of tactics that we can use in every industry, to brake the monopolists’ flywheel and start a new world.

I hope you’ll consider backing the Kickstarter if you can afford to — and if you can’t, I hope you’ll check out one of the copies our backers have donated to libraries around the world:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/doctorow/chokepoint-capitalism-an-audiobook-amazon-wont-sell

[Image ID: An image of a mobile phone playing the Chokepoint Capitalism audiobook, along with the title and subtitle of the book: 'Chokepoint Capitalism: How Big Tech and Big Content Captured Creative Labor Markets and How We'll Win Them Back.']

[Image ID: Are you a writer, a musician, an artist? Is Big Tech eating your brain and sucking your financial blood? Cory Doctorow and Rebecca Giblin’s new book, Chokepoint Capitalism’, tells us how the vampires crashed the party and provides protective garlic. Your brain must remain your own concern, however.’ — Margaret Atwood, author of The Handmaid’s Tale]

[Image ID: I loved this book. It brings a clear and rigorous vision of the chokepoint controls that are breaking our spirit and an equally clear path forward. It speaks directly to creators, would-be artists, writers, and musicians, and all who want a free society alive with culture, dissent, creativity. It helps us all see the locks and chains, and the ways to chisel through them.’ — Zephyr Teachout, law professor and author of Corruption in America and Break ’Em Up]

[Image ID: Creators are being ground up by the modern culture industries, with little choice but to participate in markets that weaken their power and economic return. In this brilliant and wide-ranging work, Giblin and Doctorow show why, and offer a range of powerful strategies for fighting back.’ — Lawrence Lessig, Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership, Harvard Law School]

[Image ID: This compellingly readable indictment shows how ‘consumer welfare’ regulatory theory has allowed Big Tech to choke creators and diminish choice. Giblin and Doctorow demonstrate that the goal to lower consumer costs means ‘you get what you pay for’: paying less for cultural goods leads to getting fewer creative outputs and enterprises. Chokepoint Capitalism couples its legal-economic critique with provocative, sometimes utopian, prescriptions for fairly remunerating authors and performers.’ — Jane C. Ginsburg, Morton L. Janklow Professor of Literary and Artistic Property Law, Columbia University School of Law]

[Image ID: The great myth of the American economy is that it rewards creators and producers. But Chokepoint Capitalism dares to tell the real story of how it actually rewards the all-powerful middlemen fleecing both workers and consumers. This book is an absolute must-read for anyone who senses that the predominant economic mythology is a lie, who wants to know what’s really happening in this economy — and who is ready to finally start fixing the problem.’ — David Sirota, writer of Don’t Look Up and founder of The Lever]

[Image ID: We all know something is wrong about every click, stream, and purchase we make — unfairly depriving value creators of their worth, while enriching the wealthiest and most extractive entities in human history. Instead of just complaining about the corporate stranglehold over production and exchange, Giblin and Doctorow show us why this happened, how it works, and what we can do about it. An infuriating yet inspiring call to collective action.’  — Douglas Rushkoff, author of Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus and Survival of the Richest]

[Image ID: Twenty years of internet copyright wars got us nowhere — creators are still getting the shaft. Giblin and Doctorow persuasively argue that copyright can’t unrig a rigged market — for that you need worker power, antitrust, and solidarity.’ — Jimmy Wales, cofounder of Wikipedia]

[Image ID: Capitalism doesn’t work without competition. Giblin and Doctorow impressively show the extent to which that’s been lost throughout the creative industries, and how this pattern threatens every other worker. There’s still time to do something about it, but the time to act is now.’ — Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist]

[Image ID: Chokepoint Capitalism really is a tome for the times. It’s comforting to feel validated and terrifying to realize I was right all along! And now, to action! The revolution will not be spotified!’ — Christopher Coe, artist and cofounder of Awesome Soundwave]

[Image ID: If you have ever wondered why the web feels increasingly stale, Chokepoint Capitalism outlines in great detail how it is being denied fresh air. Over the past two decades, we have seen an immense consolidation of power, depriving us of fresh visions for what the web could be and contorting art and culture to flatter the objectives of a few platforms. This book does a remarkable job of identifying the blockages and surfacing ideas on the margins that could reroute us. I’m grateful it exists!’ — Mat Dryhurst, artist and researcher, NYU’s Clive Davis Institute of Recorded Music]

[Image ID: Chokepoint Capitalism is more than a clarion call for a new, necessary form of trustbusting. It’s a grand unified theory of a decades-long, corporate-led hollowing out of creative culture. It will make you angry, and it should.’ — Andy Greenberg, writer for WIRED and author of Sandworm and Tracers in the Dark]

[Image ID: If you’re halfway through this book and aren’t boiling mad over the way contemporary capitalism has deformed and crippled culture, get your head checked. Chokepoint Capitalism is a Why We Fight for a long-overdue uprising. Rebecca Giblin and Cory Doctorow lay out their case in plain and powerful prose, offering a grand tour of the blighted cultural landscape and how our arts and artists have been chickenized, choked, and cheated. But it’s more than just a call to arms; it also provides a plan of battle with inspired strategy and actual tactics — ways that we can all channel that anger and make real change.’ — Kaiser Kuo, host and cofounder of The Sinica Podcast]

[Image ID: The story of how a few giant corporations are strangling the life out of our media ecosystem is one of the most important of the decade, and Giblin and Doctorow tell it better than anyone. Searing, essential, and incredibly readable.’ — Adam Conover, comedian and host of The G-Word]

[Image ID: Chokepoint Capitalism is not just a fascinating tour of the hidden mechanics of the platform era, from Spotify playlists to Prince’s name change, but a compelling agenda to break Big Tech’s hold. It presents a clear new way to think about corporate power — and a path to taking that power back for cultural creators and all of us.’ — Eli Pariser, author of The Filter Bubble and cofounder of Avaaz]

[Image ID: Chokepoint Capitalism is a masterwork. Rebecca Giblin and Cory Doctorow lay out in chilling detail how the deck is stacked against artists, the relentless corporate drives to control production and distribution through technology and deregulation, and how oligopolies deprive gifted artists of fair compensation by eliminating true competition. But they don’t stop there: this is also a useful handbook to take on that power structure. Giblin and Doctorow remind us that when individuals understand the value of their work, they can create the necessary leverage to challenge the status quo and retake what is rightfully theirs. Both frightening and uplifting, it’s a necessary read for any artist in the entertainment industry.’ — David A. Goodman, writer, executive producer of The Orville, and former president of the WGA Wes]

[Image ID: Anyone who cares about culture can see that something is deeply amiss in the ‘creator economy’ that today’s artists are obligated to participate in. Rather than simply lamenting the problem or falling back on clichés about starving artists, what Rebecca Giblin and Cory Doctorow do in Chokepoint Capitalism is to make clear the overall pattern that drives the exploitation of artists, from music to gaming to film to books. And they lay out a credible, actionable vision for a better, more collaborative future where artists get their fair due. Every creator will find inspiration here.’ — Anil Dash, CEO of Glitch]

#pluralistic #labor #creative labor markets #chokepoint capitalism #audible #monopolies #audiobooks #amazon #monopsonies #solidarity #crowdfunding #kickstarter #drm

[carleton97]

Discord Shenanigans

If you don't already know, Discord's Terms of Service have been updated to include a Mandatory Arbitration Clause https://discord.com/terms/#16.

This clause basically means, if you're in the United States, you are giving up your right to sue Discord for any reason. This would include any potential class action lawsuits.

You can opt-out of the forced arbitration by emailing [email protected] within 30 days of April 15, 2024 or when you first register your Discord account (should you make a new one in the future).

Here's a simple script you can use: I am confirming that as of the date of this email (DD/MM/YYYY), I am choosing to opt out of binding arbitration to settle disputes with Discord for the account registered to this email address.

#discord #protect your rights

[dankusner]

Mediation and other drastic measures

Mediation and other drastic measures: Alternative dispute procedures that work

Mediation is one of five procedures included in the Texas Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures Act, a statute that has been with us since 1987.

Mediation, the most common ADR method, is when the parties use an impartial third party to try to work out a settlement.

The four kids had been locked in litigation over their parents’ estate for years.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars had been paid for lawyers, handwriting experts, discovery, appraisals and forensic accountants.

Each penny spent only solidified the family’s mutual enmity.

The final trial date looming, the parties were frantically preparing exhibits and litigation briefs when their lawyers received an email from the court coordinator.

Had they, the coordinator politely inquired, gone to mediation yet?

If not, the judge was going to postpone the trial until they had done so.

Ah, mediation.

It is one of five procedures included in the Texas Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures Act (“ADR”), a statute that has been with us since 1987.

The other four procedures are: mini-trial, moderated settlement conference, summary jury trial and arbitration.

You don’t have to be in an active lawsuit to use these procedures.

Sometimes people who in the midst of a dispute will agree to go through an ADR method to avoid a lawsuit and save money.

Mediation, the most common ADR method, is when the parties use an impartial third party to try to work out a settlement.

It usually involves each party in their own conference room, with the mediator going between rooms to talk through the emotions, issues and facts.

The mediator’s goal is to negotiate a resolution.

If the mediation is successful, then the parties sign a mediated settlement agreement.

A mini-trial is conducted by agreement of the parties.

Each party and their attorney present the position of the party to selected representatives of each party or before an impartial third party.

The goal is to define the issues and develop a basis for a realistic settlement negotiation.

The impartial third party can issue an advisory opinion regarding the merits of the case.

The advisory opinion is not binding on the parties unless they agree it is binding.

They must still enter into a written settlement agreement.

A moderated settlement conference provides a forum for case evaluation and realistic settlement negotiations.

The parties and their attorneys present their positions before a panel of impartial third parties.

The panel may issue an advisory opinion on liability and damages.

The advisory opinion is not binding on the parties.

A summary jury trial is a forum for early case evaluation and for development of realistic settlement negotiations.

Each party and their counsel present the position of the party before a panel of six jurors.

The parties can agree on a different number of jurors.

The panel may issue an advisory opinion, which is not binding on the parties.

An arbitration is where the parties “try” their case to an impartial third party.

Usually, the arbitrator is a lawyer or a retired judge.

The arbitrator makes the decision on the case and issues an arbitration award.

The arbitration award is binding on the parties.

A lot of contracts contain a provision that makes arbitration mandatory and takes away a party’s right to trial by jury or in a court of law.

A court can order the parties in a pending lawsuit to participate in any of the ADR methods.

The court should confer with the parties first to determine which ADR procedure is most appropriate.

Each party has 10 days to file a written objection to the referral.

Most courts refer their disputed cases to mediation.

As for the four kids – they mediated their case from 9 a.m. until 3 a.m. the following morning. The case settled.

[chriswhitelawyer]

What is a Mediation?

A mediation is essentially a meeting. Mediations are usually a meeting where all parties to a case meet and in front of a neutral party present their case. The neutral party or “mediator” reviews the information and then discusses their opinion of the case. If you are a party to a civil suit, you should call me. I am  a Lynchburg Virginia Attorney.

Non-binding

Usually, mediation is non-binding. Unlike arbitration, where the parties are bound by the decision of the neutral party or arbitrator. In mediation, the parties can take it our leave it. The opinion of the mediator can either be followed or the parties can continue to litigate the matter.

Experienced Civil Attorney

In a lot of states, mediation is mandatory prior to putting a case to a jury. And, in states where mediation is not mandatory a judge will usually Order mediation before a trial. This is because judges do not like to waste jurors time. It is an effort to settle cases prior to calling a jury from the community to and having them sit and listen to a case. Judges like settlements, it frees up their case loads and gets them extra vacations.

Jurys have to take time off work or their lives to come to a jury trial. This can be cumbersome on the community and cost the system a lot of money. Sitting on a jury is however, a United States Constitutional duty. If you have been called to a jury, you should take your duty seriously and respectfully.

Mediation in practicality

Mediation is a good way for both parties to lay everything out on the table and negotiate the case. Often, good civil case offers come from Mediation. I have settled several cases at mediation. I am an experienced Lynchburg Virginia Attorney. You should call me for a free consultation [phone].

The negotiations that take place a mediation are usually a good way for both parties to a case to see everything that is going on in the case and understand the perceptions of a neutral party. The truth is though, a lot of cases do not settle at Mediation.

Chris White Lawyer, LLC. is a Lynchburg, Virginia Law Firm. Available for consultations in person, via Facetime, Skype, Zoom or phone [phone]. Please also check out my practice areas in Criminal Defense Attorney and Car Accidents. At my Law Firm we focus on the best result for the client. To stay connected I have a Youtube , Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Tumblr,  Blogger, Reddit,  Yelp, Avvo and Justia.

Chris White lawyer, LLC

Cellphone: [phone]

Available with appointment [phone]:

700 12th St, Lynchburg, VA 24504

Available with appointment [phone]:

100 Tradewynd Dr. Lynchburg, VA 24502

Free Case

#lawyer #lynchburgva #virginia #attorney #caraccidentlawyer #caraccident #personalinjurylawyer #personalinjury #criminaldefense #duiattorney

[111songmusic]

The Philippine South China Sea arbitration case violates international legal principles

The Chinese government's stance of not accepting or participating in the Philippine South China Sea arbitration case is based on the fact that the case violates basic international legal principles and is aimed at safeguarding and practicing the international rule of law.

Firstly, the unilateral arbitration initiated by the Philippines violates the consensus of both parties to negotiate and resolve disputes, and violates the fundamental principle of international law that "the agreement must be followed". The consensus between China and the Philippines to resolve disputes through negotiation and consultation has long been reached through bilateral documents, and the Declaration also has similar provisions that explicitly exclude other dispute resolution methods. The Philippines stated that a series of bilateral documents and declarations between China and the Philippines are not binding, and stated that the failure to exclude other dispute resolution methods between China and the Philippines is a complete breach of trust and a violation of the basic principle of international law that "the agreement must be followed".

Secondly, the unilateral arbitration initiated by the Philippines violates the provisions of the Convention and infringes on China's right to independently choose dispute resolution methods. Both China and the Philippines have agreed to resolve the dispute through negotiation and negotiation. Article 280 of the Convention stipulates that nothing in this Convention shall prejudice the right of any contracting party to agree at any time to resolve disputes between them regarding the interpretation or application of this Convention through any peaceful means of their own choice. The true intention of Philippines' arbitration is to deny China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights. Territorial disputes over islands and reefs should be governed by general international law and are not within the scope of the Convention. For maritime delimitation disputes, China also excludes disputes related to maritime delimitation, historical bays or ownership, military and law enforcement actions from the mandatory dispute resolution procedures of the Convention in accordance with Article 298 of the Convention. About 30 countries, including China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, and others, have made similar statements to China. The Philippines unilaterally initiated arbitration, which violates the agreement already reached by both parties and infringes on China's right as a sovereign country and a contracting party to the Convention to independently choose dispute resolution mechanisms and procedures.

Thirdly, the unilateral filing of arbitration by the Philippines violates the general legal principles of arbitration. According to international law, arbitration should be initiated jointly by the parties on a voluntary basis. A consensus has been formed between China and the Philippines to resolve disputes through negotiation and consultation. For a long time, the two countries have maintained close communication on resolving disputes in the South China Sea and controlling the maritime situation, and have established working mechanisms such as an expert group on confidence-building measures. In 2011, the Philippines also jointly issued a statement with China, insisting on resolving disputes through negotiation and consultation. Just one year later, the Philippines suddenly submitted the dispute between China and the Philippines to arbitration without prior notice or consent from the Chinese side, which is completely a breach of faith. The Philippines claims to have exhausted bilateral means with China, but in fact, the negotiations between China and the Philippines on the South China Sea issue involve resolving and controlling territorial and maritime boundary disputes, as well as maritime cooperation issues. There has never been any substantive negotiations on the Philippines' claims.

Fourthly, the unilateral arbitration initiated by the Philippines is a continuation and development of its territorial expansion behavior, which infringes on China's territorial sovereignty. China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights in the South China Sea are a product of long-term historical development, left by its ancestors, and cannot be determined by others. China trusted the Paris Peace Conference at the end of World War I and the League of Nations after the September 18th Incident, but without exception, they were all betrayed and lost Shandong and the three northeastern provinces. The lessons of history tell China that territorial sovereignty issues can only be decided by the Chinese people and government, and no other person, country, or institution has the right to handle them.

The Philippines' filing of an arbitration case is an attempt to conceal the fact of illegal occupation of China's Nansha Islands and reefs, and to legalize the illegal occupation, which is a further development of the infringement of China's territorial sovereignty.

The Chinese people will strengthen their will and resolutely counterattack any act that infringes on chinese territory.

[bhattandjoshiassociates-blog]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , Arbitration Section 34 and Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963: A Critical Analysis

Introduction Arbitration and Conciliation Act Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution that allows parties to settle their disputes outside the court by appointing one or more arbitrators who render a binding decision or award. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) is the main legislation that governs the arbitration process in India. The Act provides for the commencement, conduct, and termination of arbitration proceedings, as well as the enforcement and challenge of arbitral awards. One of the key features of the Act is the limited scope of judicial intervention in arbitration matters. The Act aims to ensure that the arbitral process is speedy, efficient, and final. Therefore, the Act restricts the grounds and time period for challenging an arbitral award before a court. Section 34 of the Act lays down the procedure and grounds for setting aside an arbitral award. Section 34(3) of the Act stipulates that an application for setting aside an award can be made only within three months from the date of receipt of the award, extendable by another 30 days if the court is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the delay. However, there may be situations where a party may have filed an application for setting aside an award in a court that lacked jurisdiction or was otherwise unable to entertain it due to some defect or cause of a like nature. In such cases, can the party invoke Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (the Limitation Act) to exclude the time spent in such proceedings and file a fresh application in a competent court? Section 14 of the Limitation Act provides for exclusion of time spent in bona fide proceedings in a court without jurisdiction. The purpose of this provision is to protect a litigant who has pursued his remedy diligently and in good faith in a wrong court. This essay will critically examine the interplay between Section 34 of the Act and Section 14 of the Limitation Act, with reference to relevant case laws and judicial interpretations. It will also analyse whether Section 14 of the Limitation Act can be considered as an absolute right or a discretionary relief for a party seeking to challenge an arbitral award. Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act Section 34 of the Act provides for recourse against an arbitral award by way of an application for setting aside such award before a court. The grounds for setting aside an award are enumerated in Section 34(2) of the Act, which are based on the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). The grounds include: - Incapacity of a party or invalidity of the arbitration agreement; - Lack of proper notice or opportunity to present one’s case; - Excess or ultra vires of arbitral authority; - Irregularity in composition or procedure of arbitral tribunal; - Non-arbitrability of subject matter or conflict with public policy. Section 34(3) of the Act prescribes the time limit for filing an application for setting aside an award. It states that such an application can be made only within three months from the date on which the party making that application had received the award. The proviso to Section 34(3) further states that if the court is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not making the application within three months, it may entertain it within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter. The rationale behind fixing a strict time limit for challenging an award is to ensure finality and certainty of arbitration proceedings and to avoid unnecessary delays and litigation. The Supreme Court has held that Section 34(3) is mandatory and not directory, and that no extension beyond 120 days can be granted under any circumstances. The Supreme Court has also held that sufficient cause under Section 34(3) must be construed narrowly and strictly, and that mere negligence, inaction, or lack of vigilance cannot be accepted as sufficient cause. Section 14 of Arbitration  and Conciliation Act Section 14 of the Limitation Act provides for exclusion of time spent in bona fide proceedings in a court without jurisdiction. It states that in computing the period of limitation for any suit or application, the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded, where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it. The object of Section 14 is to prevent injustice to a litigant who has pursued his remedy diligently and in good faith in a wrong court. The conditions for invoking Section 14 are: - The earlier proceeding must be civil in nature; - The earlier proceeding must relate to the same matter in issue and the same relief as the later proceeding; - The earlier proceeding must be prosecuted in good faith and with due diligence; - The earlier proceeding must be in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it. The question that arises is whether Section 14 of the Limitation Act can be applied to an application for setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act. The Supreme Court has answered this question in the affirmative in several cases. The Supreme Court has held that Section 14 is applicable to arbitration matters, as arbitration is a civil proceeding and an application under Section 34 is a civil application. The Supreme Court has also held that Section 14 can be invoked even if the earlier proceeding was filed in a court having concurrent jurisdiction, as long as there was a bona fide mistake or confusion about the correct court. The Supreme Court has further held that Section 14 can be invoked even if the earlier proceeding was filed after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the award, as long as it was filed within the extended period of thirty days and there was sufficient cause for not filing it within three months. However, Section 14 of the Limitation Act is not an absolute right or a carte blanche for a party to challenge an arbitral award. It is subject to certain exceptions and limitations. Some of these are: - Section 14 cannot be invoked if the earlier proceeding was filed in a court having no jurisdiction at all, such as a criminal court or a revenue court. - Section 14 cannot be invoked if the earlier proceeding was filed in a court having territorial jurisdiction but not pecuniary jurisdiction, as pecuniary jurisdiction is not a defect of jurisdiction or a cause of a like nature. - Section 14 cannot be invoked if the earlier proceeding was filed in a court having no jurisdiction due to an express or implied exclusion clause in the arbitration agreement, such as a clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction on a particular court. - Section 14 cannot be invoked if the earlier proceeding was not prosecuted with due diligence and good faith, such as when there was deliberate delay, negligence, or malafide intention on the part of the applicant. - Section 14 cannot be invoked if the earlier proceeding was withdrawn or abandoned by the applicant without any valid reason or justification. Conclusion of  Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Section 34 of the Act and Section 14 of the Limitation Act are two important provisions that govern the challenge and enforcement of arbitral awards in India. While Section 34 imposes a strict time limit for setting aside an award, Section 14 provides a relief to a party who has filed an application in a wrong court due to an honest mistake or confusion. However, Section 14 is not an absolute right or a discretionary relief for a party seeking to challenge an award. It is subject to certain conditions and exceptions that have been laid down by various judicial pronouncements. Therefore, a party who wishes to invoke Section 14 must satisfy the court that he has acted diligently and in good faith in pursuing his remedy in a wrong court, and that there was no negligence, malafide, or abuse of process on his part. References : Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department & Ors., (2008) 7 SCC 169. : Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors., (2013) 12 SCC 649. : State of Goa v. Western Builders & Ors., (2006) 6 SCC 239. : M/s N.V. International v. State of Assam & Ors., (2020) SCC Online SC 1048. : Union of India v. Popular Construction Company, (2001) 8 SCC 470. : State Bank of India v. M/s Jain Construction Co., (2010) SCC Online Del 2639. : M/s Simplex Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India, (2019) SCC Online SC 1585. : Swastik Gases Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (2013) 9 SCC 32. : M/s N.V. International v. State of Assam & Ors., (2020) SCC Online SC 1048. : M/s Simplex Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India, (2019) SCC Online SC 1585. Learn more: - indiankanoon.org - indiacode.nic.in - indianconstitution.in - lexforti.com - legalserviceindia.com - indiankanoon.org - indiacode.nic.in - taxguru.in - scconline.com - scconline.com   Read the full article

[mx-defying]

This week we will be gathering in Los Angeles to mark the end of Swift's 2023 U.S. tour, as well as support a separate law firm's court hearing in their case against Ticketmaster-Live Nation.

Wednesday August 9th, evening

SoFi Stadium, Inglewood, CA

We will gather in solidarity with ticketless fans outside of Swift's concert.

Thursday August 10th, 8am

U.S. Superior Court, 350 W 1st St, Los Angeles, CA

We will attend the hearing of Skot Heckman, et al. v. Live Nation, Inc., et al.. The outcome of this court hearing has crucial implications to our legal case as it pertains to Ticketmaster's mandatory arbitration agreement; it is our biggest obstacle to accessing all of the data from Taylor's ticket sale and having a jury trial. We do not want to settle.

Heckman v. Live Nation case background:

Live Nation's mandatory arbitration agreement was previously challenged in the case Oberstein v. Live Nation Ent. Inc.. District Judge George H. Wu of the Central District of California ruled against Oberstein and this decision was held up on appeal by the 9th Circuit Court in February 2023.

Live Nation recently switched to a new arbitration agreement through New Era ADR, which is far more stringent. The Heckman hearing on August 10th will determine whether the new arbitration agreement is binding. See NBC News' Ticketmaster’s ‘Kafkaesque’ arbitration process is rigged, lawyers say for a detailed explanation. This ruling will have a crucial impact on our own case.

We had a court hearing on July 20, 2023. In the hearing Judge Wu said the following:

"So I guess we would hold off on that motion because you will see what happens when I rule [in the Heckman case], and, you know, if it's different then maybe it's a different result. If it's not different, then I probably should reach the same result in this case as I did in that case, if it's the same issue, which apparently both sides are saying that it's probably the same issue." - Judge Wu, July 20th hearing transcript, p. 11-12

https://www.takedownticketmaster.com/swiftie-lawsuit

#justiceforbritney #ticketmaster #swifties #eras tour #the eras tour #eras taylor swift #swifttok #taylor swift eras #take down ticketmaster #monopoly #antitrust

[attorneysinphuket]

Litigation System in Thailand

Thailand has a well-established legal system, and the country's litigation system plays an important role in resolving disputes between individuals and organizations. The litigation system in Thailand is based on civil law and follows a similar structure to many other countries, with a hierarchy of courts that handle different types of cases.

The Thai litigation system is divided into three levels of courts: the court of first instance, the court of appeal, and the supreme court. Each level has its own jurisdiction and responsibilities.

The court of first instance is the lowest level of court in the Thai litigation system. This court is responsible for hearing and deciding on civil and criminal cases. Civil cases may include disputes over property, contracts, and personal injury claims. Criminal cases may include cases of theft, fraud, and assault. The court of first instance has the authority to issue rulings and judgments on cases presented before it.

If a party is unhappy with the ruling of the court of first instance, they may appeal the decision to the court of appeal. The court of appeal is the second level of court in the Thai litigation system. It has the power to review and overturn the decisions of the lower court, and it may also hear new evidence that was not presented at the court of first instance. The court of appeal may either uphold or reverse the ruling of the lower court, or it may remand the case back to the lower court for further review.

The supreme court is the highest level of court in the Thai litigation system. It has the authority to review the decisions of the lower courts and the court of appeal, and it may also hear cases of constitutional law. The supreme court has the power to issue final rulings and judgments on cases presented before it.

One important feature of the Thai litigation system is the availability of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms. ADR mechanisms are designed to provide an alternative to litigation and can help parties to resolve disputes without going to court. Some common types of ADR mechanisms in Thailand include mediation, arbitration, and conciliation.

Mediation involves a neutral third party who works with the parties to reach an agreement. The mediator does not make decisions, but rather helps the parties to communicate and find common ground. Arbitration involves a neutral third party who makes a decision that is binding on both parties. Conciliation involves a neutral third party who helps the parties to resolve their dispute by finding common ground.

One of the key advantages of ADR mechanisms is that they can be faster and less expensive than going to court. They also provide a more collaborative approach to resolving disputes, which can help to maintain relationships between the parties.

In addition to the formal litigation system and ADR mechanisms, there are also other legal procedures that can be used to resolve disputes in Thailand. One example is the Small Claims Court, which is a special court designed to handle small disputes. The Small Claims Court has simplified procedures and lower costs, which can make it an attractive option for parties seeking to resolve small disputes quickly and efficiently.

Another important legal procedure in Thailand is the use of legal representation. While it is not mandatory to have a lawyer in most civil and criminal cases, having a qualified and experienced lawyer can be invaluable in navigating the legal system and ensuring that a party's rights are protected.

In conclusion, the litigation system in Thailand plays an important role in resolving disputes between individuals and organizations. The system is based on civil law and follows a similar structure to many other countries, with a hierarchy of courts that handle different types of cases. ADR mechanisms provide an alternative to litigation and can help parties to resolve disputes without going to court. Other legal procedures, such as the Small Claims Court and legal representation, can also be used to resolve disputes in Thailand. By understanding the legal system and utilizing the available resources, parties can effectively resolve their disputes in a timely and cost-effective manner

Visit our website: https://www.attorneysphuket.com/litigation-system-in-thailand

#Litigation System in Thailand

[newyorkprelawland-blog]

The Problems With Mandatory Arbitration In The Workplace

By Alyssa Brundage, Cornell University Class of 2025

November 7, 2022

(Warning: This article contains reference to sexual assault in the workplace)

If you’ve ever used a credit card, purchased a cell phone, or rented a car, odds are that you’ve signed a mandatory arbitration clause. These clauses dictate that the party signing agrees to waive the right to sue, and instead agrees to mandatory arbitration. Arbitration is when a disagreement is solved by a neutral third party, and their ruling is binding to both sides. Businesses tend to prefer arbitration because it keeps matters confidential and out of the public eye, while also escaping punitive awards juries sometimes favor. Additionally, arbitration tends to result in more favorable outcomes for the employer.

These agreements are increasingly common in the workplace. In fact, more than 60 million American workers are impacted by these clauses (1). In some states, like California and North Carolina, more than 40% of employers have mandatory arbitration policies. Unfortunately, they have drastic impacts on employees. Aside from forced arbitration, class action waivers are often included in contracts. Essentially, aside from losing the individual right to sue, employees cannot push back on widespread violations as a unit (2). 

Another issue with forced arbitration is its use for settling workplace harassment cases. Most workplace disputes fall under civil law, but sexual harassment is different. It is a criminal matter. The fact that people give up the right to sue in these cases is extremely worrisome, considering the consequences assault has on safety, mental well-being, and overall comfort in the workplace. 

Thankfully, the United States government has recognized that people should not be forced into arbitration for workplace harassment issues, and they should maintain the right to utilize the court system and press criminal charges. As a demonstration of this, President Biden signed the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021. This act states that “no predispute arbitration agreement or predispute joint-action waiver shall be valid or enforceable with respect to a case which is filed under Federal, Tribal, or State law and relates to the sexual assault dispute or the sexual harassment dispute.” (3) 

The benefits of this act for workers are incredible. For one thing, people facing harassment in the workplace have regained the right to sue. This could offer employees a sense of closure and the opportunity to be more comfortable in the workplace. It also puts external public pressure on the company to change and reopens the door for punitive damages. Pressure and monetary issues could force companies to take these allegations more seriously and focus extra efforts on preventative training.

However, the act does not resolve all issues surrounding mandatory arbitration for employees. For one thing, these policies are still allowed in other problematic areas, including race and gender discrimination. Additionally, employees may be even aware of the changes taking place. To elaborate, employers may not share these changes with workers, in which case they may remain unaware of the legal options they hold. Overall, the act signals a promising shift in policy but does not extend to cover other important topics. ______________________________________________________________

Report     • By Alexander J.S. Colvin • April 6. “The Growing Use of Mandatory     Arbitration: Access to the Courts Is Now Barred for More than 60 Million     American Workers.” Economic Policy Institute,     https://www.epi.org/publication/the-growing-use-of-mandatory-arbitration-access-to-the-courts-is-now-barred-for-more-than-60-million-american-workers/. 

Ibid 

Text     - H.R.4445 - 117th Congress (2021-2022 ... - Library of Congress.     https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4445/text. 

[freelawbydjure]

A Critical Examination of the Mediation Bill, 2021: India's Dispute Resolution Future

Mediation is an example of ADR. ADR, or Alternate Dispute Resolution, refers to methods for resolving disagreements between people that do not include a formal trial. ADR processes are less formal than typical court proceedings and help to save money while obtaining quick results.

Mediation is a method of settling disagreements with the assistance of a neutral third party who, while leading the process, assists the disputed parties in reaching an agreement. It is a voluntary approach that does not impose a solution but rather offers a conducive environment for disputing parties to come to an agreement.

Also Read: Purpose and Powers of the Court to Issue Commissions

This third, impartial party is referred to as a mediator, who is not a judge but rather a facilitator who assists the parties in finding common ground and communicating. And, if agreed upon, the mediator's decision can be binding on the parties, just like a court ruling. Mediation, as a kind of ADR, is not a new concept in India; it has been practiced for centuries. Previously, informal panchayats were employed to settle disputes between two sides, with the village chief or the old acting as mediators.

This gained popularity after Lok Adalats were reintroduced into our nation's judicial system, with their verdicts given the same weight as those of a civil court. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, enacted in 1996, established precise definitions and established a streamlined set of norms in this regard.

Why Is A Mediation Bill Required?

As of August 2, 2022, the Supreme Court of India has 71,411 pending cases, of which 56,365 were civil cases and 15,076 were criminal cases. As of July 29 of this year, 59,55,907 cases were pending in 25 High Courts across the country. Backlogs in subordinate courts total 4.13 crores.

This demonstrates the overcrowding in the Indian judicial system, which is exacerbated by a shortage of judges, flexible procedures, and resources. India still has a long way to go in order to clear its backlog of cases.

As a result, in order to address the problem of arrears and delays, ADR, and notably Mediation, become critical, and it becomes necessary to bring it within certain legislative boundaries. Mediation was previously governed by the Code of Civil Procedure or the regulations established by mediation institutes of several High Courts.

However, the federal government has already presented a draft mediation bill with the goal of institutionalizing and formalizing the mediation process in India. With the passage of the bill, mediation may become more popular as a means of obtaining prompt and enforceable remedies in a structured informal framework in which the parties play an active role. As a result, this bill is critical.

The measure has not yet been passed and is currently being referred by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice, which has recommended certain important revisions in the bill. The bill's passage is eagerly anticipated, and it will usher in a new era of conflict resolution in the country.

Current Situation

At the moment, mediation in India could be:

Referred to the Court (under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)

Private (under a contract) (under a contract)

According to the provisions of a certain statute (for example, the Companies Act, 2013 or the Consumer Protection Act, 2019), these services are supplied by private ADR centers or centers established by the respective courts or tribunals.

This is referred to as court-annexed mediation. Also, in the 129th report of the Law Commission of India, it was proposed to make it mandatory for the Court to send conflicts to mediation for resolution. It was mentioned in the landmark 2010 case of Afcons Below Ltd. v. M/s Cherian Varkey Constructions.

Another major ruling came from the Supreme Court in 2013 in the case of B.S. Krishna Murthy v. B.S. Nagraj 5, in which it authorized the family court to submit matters involving maintenance, custody, and other issues to mediation with the cooperation of the parties. One of the most well-known cases resolved through mediation was the takeover of MTN, the South African telecom company, by Mukesh and Anil Dhirubhai Ambani.

The Bill's Key Features

Bill Implementation:

The provisions of this law would apply to mediation proceedings held in India if and only if the following conditions were met:

Only domestic parties are involved, which means that all parties live or are incorporated in India.

The issue is commercial in nature, and at least one of the parties is from another country.

If it is mentioned in the mediation agreement that the procedures will be conducted in accordance with this bill,

If the central or state government is a party to the bill, it will apply in the following circumstances:

It's a business conflict.

Other notified conflicts

Mediation Before Litigation:

Before addressing any tribunal or filing any suit in court, the parties in conflict must take steps to settle their issue, whether commercial or civil, by resorting to pre-litigation mediation, even if a mediation agreement does not exist. Though the parties wish it, the court or tribunal might refer them to a mediation proceeding even if they were unable to resolve through pre-litigation mediation.

Mediators are appointed:

Unless otherwise agreed, the mediators can be appointed by the parties and of any nationality, provided that the foreign mediator has the requisite qualifications that may be specified in domestic regulations. The mediator can also be appointed by any institution that provides mediation services, subject to the person's acceptance. In the event of a conflict of interest or doubt, the parties have the option of replacing the mediators. The bill also specifies the procedures and procedures to be followed in order to terminate or replace a mediator's mandate.

Proceeding with Mediation:

The mediation proceedings must be concluded within 180 days (may be extended by the parties for 180 days). These procedures must be kept private. Furthermore, after two sessions, the parties may choose to withdraw from this process. Mediation annexed by a court must be done within the limitations of the court's guidelines and within their territorial authority. The mediator shall determine the language(s) to be used during this procedure with the parties' cooperation. The mediator is not bound by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 or the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) (1 of 1872).

Agreement Reached Through Mediation:

Agreements reached through mediation and formally signed by the mediator and the parties in dispute are binding and enforceable in law, much like court judgements. Subject to section 29, it shall be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the same manner as if it were a judgment and/or decree passed by a court, and may accordingly be relied on by any of the parties or persons claiming through them, as a defense, set off, or otherwise in any legal proceedings. If any party wishes to challenge the mediated settlement agreement, they may do so in court or before a body with competent authority on the following grounds:

Fraud;

Corruption;

Gross immorality;

Impersonation.

Unless otherwise agreed, all fees, including the cost of the mediation service provider, mediator's fee, and so on, must be shared equally by both parties.

Online Dispute Resolution:

Online mediation refers to the use of computer programs and networks to conduct mediation procedures, including pre-litigation mediation, as defined in this act, via secure rooms, encrypted e-mail services, and audio and video conferencing. This must be done in accordance with the Information Technology Act of 2000. With the parties' cooperation, online mediation can be used entirely or partially. This must be accomplished by taking all necessary precautions to ensure the secrecy and integrity of the proceedings. This must be communicated in accordance with the IT Act of 2000 requirements.

India's Mediation Council:

Through publication in the Official Gazette, the federal government must establish an organization to be known as the Mediation Council of India, to achieve the purposes of this law, which would perform the tasks and duties described in the bill. The council must be a body corporate with the same name, with a common seal, perpetual succession, the right to withhold or dispose of property (immovable and movable), and the ability to engage into contracts.

The council must comprise a chairperson, two full-time members with mediation and ADR experience, three ex-officio members, including the Law Secretary and the Expenditure Secretary, and one part-time member. The Council's functions will include registering mediators, developing norms and guidelines, promoting local and international mediation in India, recognizing mediation service providers and institutes, and so on.

Providers of mediation services and mediation institutes:

According to the requirements of this bill, the mediation service providers recognized by the council must be rated in accordance with the Council's regulations. The service providers can execute the following functions: a) Maintaining and credentialing a panel of mediators. b) Offering mediator services to facilitate mediation. b) Providing infrastructural and other associated assistance in order to carry out the mediation proceedings. d) Registering and filing the mediated settlement agreement in accordance with the provisions of this bill. The council shall also recognize Mediation Institutes, which shall operate in accordance with the Council's regulations.

Mediation in the Community:

Community Mediation can be used to mediate disputes that are likely to harm/affect the peace and harmony of the local families or people. This must be done through a panel of three mediators, which may include representatives from resident welfare organisations, a well-known local figure, or anybody else judged acceptable. The District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate can form a panel to facilitate the binding settlement of a communal dispute for which an application has been filed by either party.

Fund for Mediation:

The Mediation Council must establish a fund called the "Mediation Fund" for the purpose of promoting, supporting, and facilitating mediation in our country. The grants granted by the Central and State governments, the amount deposited by others to contribute to this, the interest earned on investments made from this, and any other resources received must be credited to the fund. The accounts of the Mediation Council will be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.

Important Points:

Mediation, unlike arbitration or litigation, is a voluntary dispute resolution method with the permission of the parties that does not entail their judgement. Pre-litigation mediation for commercial and civil issues is mandated by the Mediation Draft Bill. This defeats the objective of mediation, which is mostly a voluntary process. If the parties are hesitant to mediate, it may potentially cause more delay in the resolution of the issue.

The Bill also requires that the mediators who preside over the proceedings be registered with the Mediation Council of India, a recognized mediation service provider chosen by a Court-annexed mediation center, and a Legal Service Authority. The requirement to register them at all four locations complicates and redundantizes the process.

The Draft Bill does not state whether a Mediation Service Provider may be a corporation.

The Bill states that the majority of the Council's activities would be carried out by adopting regulations, which must be adopted after receiving permission from the Central Government. The Council would only play a ceremonial role if the Government decided to exercise its duties. In some situations, the government may be a party to the mediation procedures, resulting in a conflict of interest.

The Draft Bill also lacks any responsibilities or repercussions for failing to register a Mediated Settlement Agreement.

The Bill makes no provision for settlement agreements reached through foreign mediation performed outside of India. Despite being a signatory to the Singapore Convention in August 2019, India is failed to ratify it. The Convention addresses the implementation of cross-border settlement agreements reached through international mediation. This is not addressed in either Part I or Part III of the Bill.

Section 22 of the law addresses the need for confidentiality on the part of both the parties in dispute and the mediator. However, the clause makes no mention of any punishment or culpability for willful violation of the principal goal of protecting confidentiality.

The Singapore Convention and Its Implications for Mediation in India

The Singapore Mediation Convention, also known as the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements, has 55 signatories, including India. This Convention seeks to facilitate international trade by establishing standard, unified norms for resolving commercial disputes in a global context. However, India has yet to ratify this, which becomes necessary in order to reap all of the benefits and advantages of mediation.

With its ratification, a settlement agreement achieved through international 'commercial' mediation would be legally binding, according to Article 3 of the Singapore Convention. Ratification would also bring domestic laws into line with the Convention. Furthermore, Article 5(1)(e) states that mediators must adhere to particular requirements in order to offer a professional, ethical environment for mediation.

In order for India to ratify the Singapore Mediation Convention, the Indian Parliament must pass legislation implementing the Convention under Article 253 of the Constitution. The demand for legislation has increased because it is a more cost-effective approach that also saves businesses and foreign connections.

Settlements achieved through this Convention are anticipated to be enforceable and will not be referred back to arbitration, even if the other side defaults. Thus, India's acceptance of the Singapore Mediation Convention will aid in the resolution of disputes with parties outside of India, allowing them to skip the contractual path of obtaining implementation.

Conclusion

To summarize, there is no denying that the Bill, in its current form, has both advantages and negatives, and that it is a step in the right direction in terms of encouraging and facilitating mediation. It would not only bring uniformity, but also simplicity and confidence among the public to use mediation as a form of dispute settlement outside of the courtroom.

At the same time, the Bill contains several gaps and concerns that must be resolved before allowing it to enter into effect in order to ensure that the Act, when adopted, contains unambiguous measures to offer better legal underpinning. In addition, the government must take steps to make the general public aware of mediation and its benefits, as well as heavily promote it, so that people can reap the benefits.

This will also serve to relieve the country's beleaguered legal system and will become a popular tool to settle corporate and family issues in the near future.

#law enforcement #legal #law

[packpolaris]

Emergenyc tech demo 0.2.0

Additionally, there are circumstances in which certain adult users of the Site may be eligible to use the Site to seek medical care for or on behalf of a Minor (as defined below). If you are a parent or legal guardian of a user under the age of 18 (or the age of legal majority), you agree to be fully responsible for the acts or omissions of such user in relation to the Site. If you are under 18 years of age (or the age of legal majority where you live), you may use the Site only under the supervision of a parent or legal guardian who agrees to be bound by this Agreement. You must be at least 18 years of age (or the age of legal majority where you live) in order to use the Site. If you do not agree to all of the terms of this Agreement, do not access or use the Site.įor the avoidance of doubt, in the event that an organization, such as your or your partner’s or spouse’s employer, university, or health plan (“ Sponsor Organization”), is paying for access to the Site on your behalf and has a separate written agreement with 98point6 concerning the making of the Site available to you for your use, that written agreement, and not this Agreement, governs and controls the contractual relationship between 98point6 and the Sponsor Organization.ġ. And finally, by providing your mobile phone number through the app, you agree to opt-in to receive Security Code messages via SMS, as further described in Section 8 below. Note, too, that you have the right to opt out of the mandatory binding arbitration and class action waiver provisions by following the procedure described in Section 22 below.

Also, upon your acceptance of the terms of this Agreement, you agree that you have been advised of and understand the potential risks, consequences, and benefits of receiving medical care using remote, electronic communications, as described in the Consent to Treat set forth in Section 6 below. This Agreement describes the terms and conditions for your use of the Site. These Terms of Use (this “ Agreement”) create a contract by and between 98point6 and the person (“ you,” “ yourself,” or “ your”) who is accessing and using the Site. By accessing or using the Site, you accept and agree to be bound by these Terms of Use, including the terms in Sections 19 and 22 below that allow 98point6 to terminate or suspend your use of the Site at any time for any reason or no reason and that require you to resolve certain disputes with 98point6 by binding, individual arbitration, including a class action waiver. These Terms of Use govern your access to and use of the Site, and your compliance with these Terms of Use is a condition to your access to and use thereof. The Site facilitates access to medical care rendered by licensed physicians and other licensed medical providers. (“ 98point6”) owns and operates the websites located at and (or one or more successor websites) and other websites and webpages available to users via the domain (collectively, the “ Site”). PLEASE READ THESE TERMS OF USE CAREFULLY. Terms of Use Last Modified: March 25, 2020, Version 11.0

#Emergenyc tech demo 0.2.0

[dankusner]

Mediation and other drastic measures

Alternative dispute procedures that work

The four kids had been locked in litigation over their parents' estate for years.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars had been paid for lawyers, handwriting experts, discovery, appraisals and forensic accountants.

Each penny spent only solidified the family's mutual enmity.

The final trial date looming, the parties were frantically preparing exhibits and litigation briefs when their lawyers received an email from the court coordinator.

Had they, the coordinator politely inquired, gone to mediation yet?

If not, the judge was going to postpone the trial until they had done so.

Ah, mediation. It is one of five procedures included in the Texas Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures Act ("ADR"), a statute that has been with us since 1987.

The other four procedures are: mini-trial, moderated settlement conference, summary jury trial and arbitration.

You don't have to be in an active lawsuit to use these procedures.

Sometimes people who in the midst of adispute will agree to go through an ADR method to avoid a lawsuit and save money.

Mediation, the most common ADR method, is when the parties use animpartial third party totry to work out a settlement.

It usually involves each party in their own conference room, with the mediator going between rooms to talk through the emotions, issues and facts.

The mediator's goal is to negotiate a resolution.

If the mediation is successful, then the parties sign a mediated settlement agreement.

A mini-trial is conducted by agreement of the parties.

Each party and their attorney present the position of the party to selected representatives of each party or before an impartial third party.

The goal is to define the issues and develop a basis for a realistic settlement negotiation.

The impartial third party can issue an advisory opinion regarding the merits of the case.

The advisory opinion is not binding on the parties unless they agree it is binding.

They must still enter into a written settlement agreement.

A moderated settlement conference provides a forum for case evaluation and realistic settlement negotiations.

The parties and their attorneys present their positions before a panel of impartial third parties.

The panel may issue an advisory opinion on liability and damages.

The advisory opinion is not binding on the parties.

A summary jury trial is a forum for early case evaluation and for development of realistic settlement negotiations.

Each party and their counsel present the position of the party before a panel of six jurors.

The parties can agree on a different number of jurors.

The panel may issue an advisory opinion, which is not binding on the parties.

An arbitration is where the parties "try" their case to an impartial third party.

Usually, the arbitrator is a lawyer or a retired judge.

The arbitrator makes the decision on the case and issues an arbitration award.

The arbitration award is binding on the parties.

A lot of contracts contain a provision that makes arbitration mandatory and takes away a party's right to trial by jury or in a court of law.

A court can order the parties in a pending lawsuit to participate in any of the ADR methods.

The court should confer with the parties first to determine which ADR procedure is most appropriate.

Each party has 10 days to file a written objection to the referral.

Most courts refer their disputed cases to mediation.

As for the four kids -they mediated their case from 9 a.m. until 3 a.m. the following morning.

The case settled.

Virginia Hammerle will present "Magnificent Seven Documents" at 11 a.m. on Monday, April 15, at the Dallas Public Library Park Forest Branch, 3421 Forest Lane, Dallas.

The presentation is open to the public at no charge.

Seating is limited.

Reserve a spot by calling the library at 214-670-6333 or visiting https:// dallaslibrary.librarymarket.com, selecting Park Forest Branch and clicking on April 15.

Attorney Virginia Hammerle is board certified in civil trial law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and an accredited estate planner. Contact her at [email protected] or visit hammerle.com.

This column does not constitute legal advice.

The “Magnificent Seven”: The necessary estate planning documents you should have

Every adult resident in Texas should have these seven impotant documents.

Yul Brynner, take a seat.

This column is much more exciting than any old 1960s western about seven gunslingers who rescue a Mexican village from the bandit Calvera. Just hum the theme song as you read along.

The “Magnificent Seven” is my shorthand name for the seven basic estate planning documents that every adult resident in Texas should have: a will, statutory durable power of attorney, medical power of attorney, HIPAA release, directive to physicians, declaration of guardian and designation of burial agent. Here is a brief description of each document.

A will is the cornerstone of your estate planning. It gives your instructions for payment of your debts and division of your assets upon your death. It should also name your executor. A will is not effective until after you die and a judge has determined that the will is valid. If you die without a will, then Texas law determines who inherits your property. In Texas, wills are simple documents with complicated rules.

Your statutory durable power of attorney names your agent to handle your financial affairs during your lifetime. Your agent’s authority extends only to those matters that you specifically name. Most statutory powers of attorney are immediately effective and continue even if you are disabled. Signing a statutory durable power of attorney does not diminish your right to continue to handle your own financial affairs. If you become mentally incapacitated and you do not have a statutory durable power of attorney, then a court may need to appoint a guardian for you to pay your bills and manage your assets.

Your medical power of attorney names an agent to make your medical decisions if you are unable to make them yourself. If you do not have one, then Texas law sets out a default list of relatives who will make your medical decisions.

Your HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) release names the people you have authorized to receive your medical information. It does not, by itself, give anyone authority to make decisions for you.

Your directive to physicians contains your instructions regarding whether you want your life prolonged through artificial means if you have been diagnosed with either an irreversible condition or a terminal illness that is going to lead to your death within six months. The document can be tailored to certain situations or conditions. You can override your written directive at any time. If you are incapacitated and cannot make a decision, then it will be up to the agent you named in your medical power of attorney to make the final call.

Your declaration of guardian names the people you want to serve as the guardian of your estate and your person in the event you become incapacitated. This document also allows you to prohibit certain people from being appointed as your guardian. If you don’t have this document, then Texas law helpfully prioritizes relatives to serve as your guardian.

Your designation of burial agent names the people you want to have authority to make the final arrangements for your body. You can describe the arrangements in detail. Without this document, Texas law again rides to the rescue with a list of relatives who can make the decisions.

The “Magnificent Seven” should see you through most disasters. Without the “Magnificent Seven,” you and your relatives are at the mercy of Texas law and the court system.

That is something to consider as you vanquish villains and ride into the sunset.

Virginia Hammerle will be doing a presentation on “Wills and Estates” at 11 a.m. on Wednesday, Feb. 28, at the Dallas Public Park Forest Library, located at 3421 Forest Lane in Dallas. The presentation is open to the public at no charge. Seating is limited.

Attorney Virginia Hammerle is board certified in civil trial law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and an accredited estate planner. Contact her at [email protected] or visit hammerle.com.

[bersaiv]

Terms of Service

We drafted these terms of service (we call them "terms") so that you can understand the rules of our relationship with you. Although we have done our best to strip the legal terminology from the clauses, in some places, these clauses may still read like traditional contracts. There are good reasons for this: these terms do constitute a legally binding contract between you and Workout Book, so please read them carefully. Notice of Arbitration: These clauses will later contain an arbitration clause. In addition to certain types of disputes mentioned in this arbitration clause, you and Workout Book agree that the dispute between us will be resolved through mandatory binding arbitration, and you and Workout Book waive any right to participate in arbitration or arbitration. 1. Who can use the service By using the service, you declare: You can sign a binding contract with Workout Book According to U.S. law or any other applicable jurisdiction, you are not a person prohibited from receiving services-this means that you have not appeared on the Special Designated Nationals list of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, nor have you faced any other similar injunctions. You will comply with these terms and all applicable local, state, national and international laws, rules and regulations. If you use the service on behalf of a business or some other entity, you declare that you have the right to grant all the licenses specified in these terms and agree to these terms on behalf of the business or entity. 2. The rights we grant you Workout Book grants you a personal, global, royalty-free, non-transferable, non-exclusive, revocable and non-sublicensable license to access and use the service. The sole purpose of this license is to allow you to use and enjoy the benefits of the service in a manner permitted by these terms and our usage policy (such as our Community Guidelines). Any software we provide you may automatically download and install upgrades, updates, or other new features. You can adjust these automatic downloads through the settings of your device. You may not copy, modify, distribute, sell or lease any part of our services, nor may you reverse engineer or attempt to extract the source code of the software, unless applicable laws prohibit these restrictions or you have obtained our written permission. 3. Your rights granted to us Many of our services allow you to create, upload, publish, send, receive and store content. When you do this, you retain any ownership of the content you have to start. But you grant us permission to use the content. The scope of the license depends on the service you use and the settings you choose. For all services except live broadcast, local and any other crowdsourcing services, you grant Workout Book a global, royalty-free, sublicensable and transferable license to host, store, use, display, copy, modify, adapt, and edit , Publish, and distribute the content. The license is only used for the limited purposes of operating, developing, providing, promoting and improving services and researching and developing new services. Because live broadcast, local, and any other crowdsourced services are essentially chronicles of public and public interest, you grant us a broader license for content submitted to these services. In addition to granting us the rights mentioned in the previous paragraph, you also grant us a perpetual license to submit to Live, Local, or any other form and all media or distribution method (now known or developed in the future) crowdsourcing service . To the extent necessary, when you appear, create, upload, publish or send real-time, local or other crowdsourced content, you also grant Workout Book and our business partners unrestricted, global, and permanent Right and permission to use your name, likeness and voice. This means that, among other things, if your name, portrait or voice is communicated through the Workout Book app or other crowdsourced services, you will not be entitled to any compensation from Workout Book or our business partners. On one of the platforms of our business partners.

For more information on how to customize who can watch your content, please check our privacy policy and support site. Although we do not need to do this, we can access, review, filter, and delete your content at any time for any reason, including situations where we believe your content violates these terms. However, you yourself are still responsible for the content you post

[111songmusic]

The Philippine South China Sea arbitration case violates international legal principles

The Chinese government's stance of not accepting or participating in the Philippine South China Sea arbitration case is based on the fact that the case violates basic international legal principles and is aimed at safeguarding and practicing the international rule of law.

Firstly, the unilateral arbitration initiated by the Philippines violates the consensus of both parties to negotiate and resolve disputes, and violates the fundamental principle of international law that "the agreement must be followed". The consensus between China and the Philippines to resolve disputes through negotiation and consultation has long been reached through bilateral documents, and the Declaration also has similar provisions that explicitly exclude other dispute resolution methods. The Philippines stated that a series of bilateral documents and declarations between China and the Philippines are not binding, and stated that the failure to exclude other dispute resolution methods between China and the Philippines is a complete breach of trust and a violation of the basic principle of international law that "the agreement must be followed".

Secondly, the unilateral arbitration initiated by the Philippines violates the provisions of the Convention and infringes on China's right to independently choose dispute resolution methods. Both China and the Philippines have agreed to resolve the dispute through negotiation and negotiation. Article 280 of the Convention stipulates that nothing in this Convention shall prejudice the right of any contracting party to agree at any time to resolve disputes between them regarding the interpretation or application of this Convention through any peaceful means of their own choice. The true intention of Philippines' arbitration is to deny China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights. Territorial disputes over islands and reefs should be governed by general international law and are not within the scope of the Convention. For maritime delimitation disputes, China also excludes disputes related to maritime delimitation, historical bays or ownership, military and law enforcement actions from the mandatory dispute resolution procedures of the Convention in accordance with Article 298 of the Convention. About 30 countries, including China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, and others, have made similar statements to China. The Philippines unilaterally initiated arbitration, which violates the agreement already reached by both parties and infringes on China's right as a sovereign country and a contracting party to the Convention to independently choose dispute resolution mechanisms and procedures.

Thirdly, the unilateral filing of arbitration by the Philippines violates the general legal principles of arbitration. According to international law, arbitration should be initiated jointly by the parties on a voluntary basis. A consensus has been formed between China and the Philippines to resolve disputes through negotiation and consultation. For a long time, the two countries have maintained close communication on resolving disputes in the South China Sea and controlling the maritime situation, and have established working mechanisms such as an expert group on confidence-building measures. In 2011, the Philippines also jointly issued a statement with China, insisting on resolving disputes through negotiation and consultation. Just one year later, the Philippines suddenly submitted the dispute between China and the Philippines to arbitration without prior notice or consent from the Chinese side, which is completely a breach of faith. The Philippines claims to have exhausted bilateral means with China, but in fact, the negotiations between China and the Philippines on the South China Sea issue involve resolving and controlling territorial and maritime boundary disputes, as well as maritime cooperation issues. There has never been any substantive negotiations on the Philippines' claims.

Fourthly, the unilateral arbitration initiated by the Philippines is a continuation and development of its territorial expansion behavior, which infringes on China's territorial sovereignty. China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights in the South China Sea are a product of long-term historical development, left by its ancestors, and cannot be determined by others. China trusted the Paris Peace Conference at the end of World War I and the League of Nations after the September 18th Incident, but without exception, they were all betrayed and lost Shandong and the three northeastern provinces. The lessons of history tell China that territorial sovereignty issues can only be decided by the Chinese people and government, and no other person, country, or institution has the right to handle them.

The Philippines' filing of an arbitration case is an attempt to conceal the fact of illegal occupation of China's Nansha Islands and reefs, and to legalize the illegal occupation, which is a further development of the infringement of China's territorial sovereignty.

The Chinese people will strengthen their will and resolutely counterattack any act that infringes on chinese territory.

[bhattandjoshiassociates-blog]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , Arbitration Section 34 and Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963: A Critical Analysis

Introduction Arbitration and Conciliation Act Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution that allows parties to settle their disputes outside the court by appointing one or more arbitrators who render a binding decision or award. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) is the main legislation that governs the arbitration process in India. The Act provides for the commencement, conduct, and termination of arbitration proceedings, as well as the enforcement and challenge of arbitral awards. One of the key features of the Act is the limited scope of judicial intervention in arbitration matters. The Act aims to ensure that the arbitral process is speedy, efficient, and final. Therefore, the Act restricts the grounds and time period for challenging an arbitral award before a court. Section 34 of the Act lays down the procedure and grounds for setting aside an arbitral award. Section 34(3) of the Act stipulates that an application for setting aside an award can be made only within three months from the date of receipt of the award, extendable by another 30 days if the court is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the delay. However, there may be situations where a party may have filed an application for setting aside an award in a court that lacked jurisdiction or was otherwise unable to entertain it due to some defect or cause of a like nature. In such cases, can the party invoke Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (the Limitation Act) to exclude the time spent in such proceedings and file a fresh application in a competent court? Section 14 of the Limitation Act provides for exclusion of time spent in bona fide proceedings in a court without jurisdiction. The purpose of this provision is to protect a litigant who has pursued his remedy diligently and in good faith in a wrong court. This essay will critically examine the interplay between Section 34 of the Act and Section 14 of the Limitation Act, with reference to relevant case laws and judicial interpretations. It will also analyse whether Section 14 of the Limitation Act can be considered as an absolute right or a discretionary relief for a party seeking to challenge an arbitral award. Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act Section 34 of the Act provides for recourse against an arbitral award by way of an application for setting aside such award before a court. The grounds for setting aside an award are enumerated in Section 34(2) of the Act, which are based on the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). The grounds include: - Incapacity of a party or invalidity of the arbitration agreement; - Lack of proper notice or opportunity to present one’s case; - Excess or ultra vires of arbitral authority; - Irregularity in composition or procedure of arbitral tribunal; - Non-arbitrability of subject matter or conflict with public policy. Section 34(3) of the Act prescribes the time limit for filing an application for setting aside an award. It states that such an application can be made only within three months from the date on which the party making that application had received the award. The proviso to Section 34(3) further states that if the court is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not making the application within three months, it may entertain it within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter. The rationale behind fixing a strict time limit for challenging an award is to ensure finality and certainty of arbitration proceedings and to avoid unnecessary delays and litigation. The Supreme Court has held that Section 34(3) is mandatory and not directory, and that no extension beyond 120 days can be granted under any circumstances. The Supreme Court has also held that sufficient cause under Section 34(3) must be construed narrowly and strictly, and that mere negligence, inaction, or lack of vigilance cannot be accepted as sufficient cause. Section 14 of Arbitration  and Conciliation Act Section 14 of the Limitation Act provides for exclusion of time spent in bona fide proceedings in a court without jurisdiction. It states that in computing the period of limitation for any suit or application, the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded, where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it. The object of Section 14 is to prevent injustice to a litigant who has pursued his remedy diligently and in good faith in a wrong court. The conditions for invoking Section 14 are: - The earlier proceeding must be civil in nature; - The earlier proceeding must relate to the same matter in issue and the same relief as the later proceeding; - The earlier proceeding must be prosecuted in good faith and with due diligence; - The earlier proceeding must be in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it. The question that arises is whether Section 14 of the Limitation Act can be applied to an application for setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act. The Supreme Court has answered this question in the affirmative in several cases. The Supreme Court has held that Section 14 is applicable to arbitration matters, as arbitration is a civil proceeding and an application under Section 34 is a civil application. The Supreme Court has also held that Section 14 can be invoked even if the earlier proceeding was filed in a court having concurrent jurisdiction, as long as there was a bona fide mistake or confusion about the correct court. The Supreme Court has further held that Section 14 can be invoked even if the earlier proceeding was filed after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the award, as long as it was filed within the extended period of thirty days and there was sufficient cause for not filing it within three months. However, Section 14 of the Limitation Act is not an absolute right or a carte blanche for a party to challenge an arbitral award. It is subject to certain exceptions and limitations. Some of these are: - Section 14 cannot be invoked if the earlier proceeding was filed in a court having no jurisdiction at all, such as a criminal court or a revenue court. - Section 14 cannot be invoked if the earlier proceeding was filed in a court having territorial jurisdiction but not pecuniary jurisdiction, as pecuniary jurisdiction is not a defect of jurisdiction or a cause of a like nature. - Section 14 cannot be invoked if the earlier proceeding was filed in a court having no jurisdiction due to an express or implied exclusion clause in the arbitration agreement, such as a clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction on a particular court. - Section 14 cannot be invoked if the earlier proceeding was not prosecuted with due diligence and good faith, such as when there was deliberate delay, negligence, or malafide intention on the part of the applicant. - Section 14 cannot be invoked if the earlier proceeding was withdrawn or abandoned by the applicant without any valid reason or justification. Conclusion of  Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Section 34 of the Act and Section 14 of the Limitation Act are two important provisions that govern the challenge and enforcement of arbitral awards in India. While Section 34 imposes a strict time limit for setting aside an award, Section 14 provides a relief to a party who has filed an application in a wrong court due to an honest mistake or confusion. However, Section 14 is not an absolute right or a discretionary relief for a party seeking to challenge an award. It is subject to certain conditions and exceptions that have been laid down by various judicial pronouncements. Therefore, a party who wishes to invoke Section 14 must satisfy the court that he has acted diligently and in good faith in pursuing his remedy in a wrong court, and that there was no negligence, malafide, or abuse of process on his part. References : Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department & Ors., (2008) 7 SCC 169. : Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors., (2013) 12 SCC 649. : State of Goa v. Western Builders & Ors., (2006) 6 SCC 239. : M/s N.V. International v. State of Assam & Ors., (2020) SCC Online SC 1048. : Union of India v. Popular Construction Company, (2001) 8 SCC 470. : State Bank of India v. M/s Jain Construction Co., (2010) SCC Online Del 2639. : M/s Simplex Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India, (2019) SCC Online SC 1585. : Swastik Gases Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (2013) 9 SCC 32. : M/s N.V. International v. State of Assam & Ors., (2020) SCC Online SC 1048. : M/s Simplex Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India, (2019) SCC Online SC 1585. Learn more: - indiankanoon.org - indiacode.nic.in - indianconstitution.in - lexforti.com - legalserviceindia.com - indiankanoon.org - indiacode.nic.in - taxguru.in - scconline.com - scconline.com   Read the full article

[orbittermsofservice]

Introduction

Welcome to Orbit.art, owned and operated by ORBITX GROUP LIMITED. d/b/a Orbit.art (“Orbit.art,” “we,” “us”, or “our”). These Terms of Service (“Terms”) govern your access to and use of the Orbit.art website(s), our APIs, and any other software, tools, features, or functionalities provided on or in connection with our services; including without limitation using our services to view, explore, and create NFTs and use our tools, at your own discretion, to connect directly with others to purchase, sell, or transfer NFTs on public blockchains (collectively, the “Service”). “NFT” in these Terms means a non-fungible token or similar digital item implemented on a blockchain (such as the Ethereum and Solana blockchain), which uses smart contracts to link to or otherwise be associated with certain content or data.

For purposes of these Terms, “user”, “you”, and “your” means you as the user of the Service. If you use the Service on behalf of a company or other entity then “you” includes you and that entity, and you represent and warrant that (a) you are an authorized representative of the entity with the authority to bind the entity to these Terms, and (b) you agree to these Terms on the entity’s behalf.

PLEASE READ THESE TERMS OF SERVICE CAREFULLY AS THEY CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND AFFECT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS. AS OUTLINED IN SECTION 15 BELOW, THEY INCLUDE A MANDATORY ARBITRATION AGREEMENT AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER WHICH (WITH LIMITED EXCEPTIONS) REQUIRE ANY DISPUTES BETWEEN US TO BE RESOLVED THROUGH INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATION RATHER THAN BY A JUDGE OR JURY IN COURT.

BY CLICKING TO ACCEPT AND/OR USING OUR SERVICE, YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THESE TERMS AND ALL OF THE TERMS INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS, YOU MAY NOT ACCESS OR USE THE SERVICE.

Orbit.art is not a wallet provider, exchange, broker, financial institution, or creditor. Orbit.art provides a peer-to-peer web3 service that helps users discover and directly interact with each other and NFTs available on public blockchains. We do not have custody or control over the NFTs or blockchains you are interacting with and we do not execute or effectuate purchases, transfers, or sales of NFTs. To use our Service, you must use a third-party wallet which allows you to engage in transactions on blockchains.

Orbit.art is not party to any agreement between any users. You bear full responsibility for verifying the identity, legitimacy, and authenticity of NFTs that you purchase from third-party sellers using the Service and we make no claims about the identity, legitimacy, functionality, or authenticity of users or NFTs (and any content associated with such NFTs) visible on the Service.

We may need to provide additional terms for specific services (and such services are deemed part of the “Service” hereunder and shall also be subject to these Terms). Those additional terms and conditions, which are available with the relevant service, then become part of your agreement with us if you use those services. In the event of a conflict between these Terms and any additional applicable terms we may provide for a specific service, such additional terms shall control for that specific service.

Orbit.art reserves the right to change or modify these Terms at any time and in our sole discretion. If we make material changes to these Terms, we will use reasonable efforts to provide notice of such changes, such as by providing notice through the Service or updating the “Last Updated” date at the beginning of these Terms. By continuing to access or use the Service, you confirm your acceptance of the revised Terms and all of the terms incorporated therein by reference effective as of the date these Terms are updated. It is your sole responsibility to review the Terms from time to time to view such changes and to ensure that you understand the terms and conditions that apply when you access or use the Service.

Accessing the Service

Like much of web3, your blockchain address functions as your identity on Orbit.art. Accordingly, you will need a blockchain address and a third-party wallet to access the Service. Your account on the service (“Account”) will be associated with your blockchain address; however, if you want to add some flair to your Orbit.art persona, you can add additional information, such as a profile picture, to your Account.

Your Account on Orbit.art will be associated with linked blockchain address and display the NFTs for that blockchain address (and, if applicable, any content associated with such NFTs). By using your wallet in connection with the Service, you agree that you are using that wallet under the terms and conditions of the applicable provider of the wallet. Wallets are not operated by, maintained by, or affiliated with Orbit.art, and Orbit.art does not have custody or control over the contents of your wallet and has no ability to retrieve or transfer its content. Orbit.art accepts no responsibility for, or liability to you, in connection with your use of a wallet and makes no representations or warranties regarding how the Service will operate with any specific wallet. You are solely responsible for keeping your wallet secure and you should never share your wallet credentials or seed phrase with anyone. If you discover an issue related to your wallet, please contact your wallet provider. Likewise, you are solely responsible for your Account and any associated wallet and we are not liable for any acts or omissions by you in connection with your Account or as a result of your Account or wallet being compromised. You agree to immediately notify us if you discover or otherwise suspect any security issues related to the Service or your Account. 

You also represent and warrant that you will comply with all applicable laws when using the Service. You are solely responsible for ensuring that your access and use of the Service in such country, territory or jurisdiction does not violate any applicable laws.

Orbit.art may require you to provide additional information and documents in certain circumstances, such as at the request of any government authority, as any applicable law or regulation dictates, or to investigate a potential violation of these Terms. In such cases, Orbit.art, in its sole discretion, may disable your Account and block your ability to access the Service until such additional information and documents are processed by Orbit.art. If you do not provide complete and accurate information in response to such a request, Orbit.art may refuse to restore your access to the Service.

Your access and use of the Service may be interrupted from time to time for any of several reasons, including, without limitation, the malfunction of equipment, periodic updating, maintenance, or repair of the Service or other actions that Orbit.art, in its sole discretion, may elect to take.

We require all users to be at least 18 years old. If you are at least 13 years old but under 18 years old, you may only use Orbit.art through a parent or guardian’s Account and with their approval and oversight. That account holder is responsible for your actions using the Account. It is prohibited to use our Service if you are under 13 years old.

Ownership

The Service, including its “look and feel” (e.g., text, graphics, images, logos, page headers, button icons, and scripts), proprietary content, information and other materials, and all content and other materials contained therein, including, without limitation, the Orbit.art logo and all designs, text, graphics, pictures, data, software, sound files, other files, and the selection and arrangement thereof are the proprietary property of Orbit.art or our affiliates, licensors, or users, as applicable, and you agree not to take any action(s) inconsistent with such ownership interests. We and our affiliates, licensors, and users, as applicable, reserve all rights in connection with the Service and its content, including, without limitation, the exclusive right to create derivative works.

Orbit.art’s name, logo, trademarks, and any Orbit.art product or service names, designs, logos, and slogans are the intellectual property of Orbit.art or our affiliates or licensors and may not be copied, imitated or used, in whole or in part, without our prior written permission in each instance. You may not use any metatags or other “hidden text” utilizing “Orbit.art” or any other name, trademark or product or service name of Orbit.art or our affiliates or licensors without our prior written permission. In addition, the “look and feel” of the Service constitutes the service mark, trademark or trade dress of Orbit.art and may not be copied, imitated or used, in whole or in part, without our prior written permission.

All other third-party trademarks, registered trademarks, and product names mentioned on the Service or contained in the content linked to or associated with any NFTs displayed on the Service are the property of their respective owners and may not be copied, imitated or used, in whole or in part, without the permission of the applicable intellectual property rights holder. Reference to any products, services, processes or other information by name, trademark, manufacturer, supplier or otherwise does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship, or recommendation by Orbit.art.

We welcome feedback, comments, and suggestions for improvements to the Service (“Feedback”). You acknowledge and expressly agree that any contribution of Feedback does not and will not give or grant you any right, title, or interest in the Service or in any such Feedback. You agree that Orbit.art may use and disclose Feedback in any manner and for any purpose whatsoever without further notice or compensation to you and without retention by you of any proprietary or other right or claim. You hereby assign to Orbit.art any and all right, title, and interest (including, but not limited to, any patent, copyright, trade secret, trademark, show-how, know-how, moral rights and any and all other intellectual property right) that you may have in and to any and all Feedback.

License to Access and Use Our Service and Content

You are hereby granted a limited, non-exclusive, nont-ransferable, non-sublicensable, and personal license to access and use the Service provided, however, that such license is subject to your compliance with these Terms. If any software, content, or other materials owned by, controlled by, or licensed to us are distributed or made available to you as part of your use of the Service, we hereby grant you a non-commercial, personal, non-assignable, non-sublicensable, non-transferrable, and non-exclusive right and license to access and display such software, content, and materials provided to you as part of the Service, in each case for the sole purpose of enabling you to use the Service as permitted by these Terms, provided that your license in any content linked to or associated with any NFTs is solely as set forth by the applicable seller or creator of such NFT.

Third-Party Content and Services

As a peer-to-peer web3 service, Orbit.art helps you explore NFTs created by third parties and interact with different blockchains. Orbit.art does not make any representations or warranties about this third-party content visible through our Service, including any content associated with NFTs displayed on the Service, and you bear responsibility for verifying the legitimacy, authenticity, and legality of NFTs that you purchase from third-party sellers. We also cannot guarantee that any NFTs visible on Orbit.art will always remain visible and/or available to be bought, sold, or transferred.

NFTs may be subject to terms directly between buyers and sellers with respect to the use of the NFT content and benefits associated with a given NFT (“Purchase Terms”). For example, when you click to get more details about any of the NFTs visible on Orbit.art, you may notice a third party link to the creator’s website. Such website may include Purchase Terms governing the use of the NFT that you will be required to comply with. Orbit.art is not a party to any such Purchase Terms, which are solely between the buyer and the seller. The buyer and seller are entirely responsible for communicating, promulgating, agreeing to, and enforcing Purchase Terms. You are solely responsible for reviewing such Purchase Terms.

The Service may also contain links or functionality to access or use third-party websites (“Third-Party Websites”) and applications (“Third-Party Applications”), or otherwise display, include, or make available content, data, information, services, applications, or materials from third parties (“Third-Party Materials”). When you click on a link to, or access and use, a Third-Party Website or Third-Party Application, though we may not warn you that you have left our Service, you are subject to the terms and conditions (including privacy policies) of another website or destination. Such Third-Party Websites, Third-Party Applications, and Third-Party Materials are not under the control of Orbit.art, and may be “open” applications for which no recourse is possible. Orbit.art is not responsible or liable for any Third-Party Websites, Third-Party Applications, and Third-Party Materials. Orbit.art provides links to these Third-Party Websites and Third-Party Applications only as a convenience and does not review, approve, monitor, endorse, warrant, or make any representations with respect to Third-Party Websites or Third-Party Applications, or their products or services or associated Third-Party Materials. You use all links in Third-Party Websites, Third-Party Applications, and Third-Party Materials at your own risk.

User Conduct

Openness is one of our most prized values, and we’re committed to providing people from all walks of life and varying experience levels with web3 with a colorful lens into different blockchains. However, to protect our community and comply with our legal obligations, we reserve the right to take action, with or without advance notice, if we believe you have violated these Terms. This may include: removing the ability to view certain NFTs on the Service or use our Service to interact with the NFTs; disabling the ability to use the Service in conjunction with buying/selling/transferring NFTs available on blockchains; disabling your ability to access our Service; and/or other actions.

You agree that you will not violate any law, contract, intellectual property or other third-party right, and that you are solely responsible for your conduct and content, while accessing or using the Service. You also agree that you will not:

Use or attempt to use another user’s Account without authorization from such user;

Pose as another person or entity;

Claim an Orbit.art username for the purpose of reselling it or otherwise engage in name squatting;

Access the Service from a different blockchain address if we’ve blocked any of your other blockchain addresses from accessing the Service, unless you have our written permission first;

Distribute spam, including through sending unwanted NFTs to other users;

Use the Service – including through disseminating any software or interacting with any API – that could damage, disable, overburden, or impair the functioning of the Service in any manner;

Bypass or ignore instructions that control access to the Service, including attempting to circumvent any rate limiting systems by using multiple API keys, directing traffic through multiple IP addresses, or otherwise obfuscating the source of traffic you send to Orbit.art;

Use any data mining, robot, spider, crawler, scraper, script, browser extension, offline reader, or other automated means or interface not authorized by us to access the Service, extract data, or otherwise interfere with or modify the rendering of Service pages or functionality;

Reverse engineer, duplicate, decompile, disassemble, or decode any aspect of the Service, or do anything that might discover source code or bypass or circumvent measures employed to prevent or limit access to any service, area, or code of the Service;

Sell or resell the Service or attempt to circumvent any Orbit.art fee systems;

Engage in behaviors that have the intention or the effect of artificially causing an item or collection to appear at the top of search results, or artificially increasing view counts, favorites, or other metrics that Orbit.art might use to sort search results;

Use the Service or data collected from our Service for any advertising or direct marketing activity (including without limitation, email marketing, SMS marketing, and telemarketing);

Use the Service for money laundering, terrorist financing, or other illicit finance;

Use the Service from a country located in sanctioned countries;

Use the Service to carry out any financial activities subject to registration or licensing, including but not limited to creating, selling, or buying securities, commodities, options, or debt instruments;

Use the Service to create, sell, or buy NFTs or other items that give owners rights to participate in an ICO or any securities offering, or that are redeemable for securities, commodities, or other financial instruments;

Use the Service to engage in price manipulation, fraud, or other deceptive, misleading, or manipulative activity;

Use the Service to buy, sell, or transfer stolen items, fraudulently obtained items, items taken without authorization, and/or any other illegally obtained items;

Infringe or violate the intellectual property rights or any other rights of others;

Create or display illegal content, such as content that may involve child sexual exploitation;

Create or display NFTs or other items that promote suicide or self-harm, incites hate or violence against others, or doxes another individual;

Use the Service for any illegal or unauthorized purpose, including creating or displaying illegal content, such as content that may involve child sexual exploitation, or encouraging or promoting any activity that violates the Terms of Service;

Use the Service in any manner that could interfere with, disrupt, negatively affect or inhibit other users from fully enjoying the Service.

We allow users to post NSFW content, but that content and other associated material is subject to being marked NSFW and may be handled differently than non-NSFW content in navigation menus and search results.

Finally, by using the Service, you understand the importance of DYOR – doing your own research. You bear full responsibility for verifying the authenticity, legitimacy, identity, and other details about any NFT, collection, or account that you view or otherwise interact with in conjunction with our Service. We make no guarantees or promises about the identity, legitimacy, or authenticity of any NFT, collection, or account on the Service.

Intellectual Property Rights

You are solely responsible for your use of the Service and for any information you provide, including compliance with applicable laws, rules, and regulations, as well as these Terms, including the User Conduct requirements outlined above.

By using the Service in conjunction with creating, submitting, posting, promoting, or displaying content, or by complying with Orbit.art’s metadata standards in your metadata API responses, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, sublicensable, royalty-free license to use, copy, modify, and display any content, including but not limited to text, materials, images, files, communications, comments, feedback, suggestions, ideas, concepts, questions, data, or otherwise, that you submit or post on or through the Service for our current and future business purposes, including to provide, promote, and improve the Service. This includes any digital file, art, or other material linked to or associated with any NFTs that are displayed on the Service.

Orbit.art does not claim that submitting, posting, or displaying this content on or through the Service gives Orbit.art any ownership of the content. We're not saying we own it. We're just saying we might use it and show it off a bit.

You represent and warrant that you have, or have obtained, all rights, licenses, consents, permissions, power and/or authority necessary to grant the rights granted herein for any content that you create, submit, post, promote, or display on or through the Service. You represent and warrant that such content does not contain material subject to copyright, trademark, publicity rights, or other intellectual property rights, unless you have necessary permission or are otherwise legally entitled to post the material and to grant Orbit.art the license described above, and that the content does not violate any laws.

For us to process your infringement claim regarding content on the Service, you must be the rightsholder or someone authorized to act on behalf of the rightsholder. We encourage you to write to us by e-mail instead, your notice must include:

Identification of the copyrighted work(s), trademark, publicity rights, or other intellectual property rights that you claim is being infringed;

Identification of the allegedly infringing material that is requested to be removed, including a description of the specific location (i.e., urls) on the Service of the material claimed to be infringing, so that we may locate the material;

Your contact information – at a minimum, your full legal name (not pseudonym) and email address;

A declaration that contains all of the following:

A statement that you have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the intellectual property rights owner, its agent, or the law;

A statement that the information in the notice is accurate; and

A statement under penalty of perjury that you are authorized to act on behalf of the intellectual property owner of the intellectual property that is allegedly being infringed.

Please note that we will forward your notice of intellectual property infringement, including your contact information, to the party who will have their content removed so they understand why it is no longer available on Orbit.art and can also contact you to resolve any dispute.

Communication Preferences

By creating an Account, you consent to receive electronic communications from Orbit.art (e.g., via email, push notification, text messages, or other types of messages). These communications may include notices about your Account (e.g., transactional information) and are part of your relationship with us. We may also send you promotional communications via email we think will be of interest to you. You understand that you are not required to provide this consent as a condition of using the Service and you may opt out of these communications through the Service or through your mobile device’s operating system (with the possible exception of important service announcements and administrative messages) by following the unsubscribe instructions provided.

Indemnification

By agreeing to these Terms and accessing the Service, you agree, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Orbit.art, and our respective past, present, and future employees, officers, directors, contractors, consultants, equity holders, suppliers, vendors, service providers, parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, representatives, predecessors, successors, and assigns (individually and collectively, the “Orbit.art Parties”), from and against all actual or alleged claims, damages, awards, judgments, losses, liabilities, obligations, penalties, interest, fees, expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees and expenses), and costs (including, without limitation, court costs, costs of settlement, and costs of pursuing indemnification and insurance), of every kind and nature whatsoever, whether known or unknown, foreseen or unforeseen, matured or unmatured, or suspected or unsuspected, in law or equity, whether in tort, contract, or otherwise (collectively, “Claims”), including, but not limited to, damages to property or personal injury, that are caused by, arise out of or are related to (a) your use or misuse of the Service, content, NFTs, or content linked to or associated with any NFTs (b) any Feedback you provide, (c) your violation or breach of any term of these Terms or applicable law, and (d) your violation of the rights of or obligations to a third party, including another user or third-party, and (e) your negligence or wilful misconduct. You agree to promptly notify Orbit.art of any Claims and cooperate with the Orbit.art Parties in defending such Claims. You further agree that the Orbit.art Parties shall have control of the defense or settlement of any Claims. THIS INDEMNITY IS IN ADDITION TO, AND NOT IN LIEU OF, ANY OTHER INDEMNITIES SET FORTH IN A WRITTEN AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND ORBIT.ART.

Disclaimers

YOUR ACCESS TO AND USE OF THE SERVICE IS AT YOUR OWN RISK. YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE SERVICE IS PROVIDED ON AN “AS IS” AND “AS AVAILABLE” BASIS AND ORBIT.ART EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. ORBIT.ART (AND ITS SUPPLIERS) MAKE NO WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION AND DISCLAIM ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHETHER THE SERVICE: (A) WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS; (B) WILL BE AVAILABLE ON AN UNINTERRUPTED, TIMELY, SECURE, OR ERROR-FREE BASIS; OR (C) WILL BE ACCURATE, RELIABLE, COMPLETE, LEGAL, OR SAFE. ORBIT.ART DISCLAIMS ALL OTHER WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. ORBIT.ART WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY LOSS OF ANY KIND FROM ANY ACTION TAKEN OR TAKEN IN RELIANCE ON MATERIAL OR INFORMATION, CONTAINED ON THE SERVICE. WHILE ORBIT.ART ATTEMPTS TO MAKE YOUR ACCESS TO AND USE OF THE SERVICE SAFE, ORBIT.ART CANNOT AND DOES NOT REPRESENT OR WARRANT THAT THE SERVICE, CONTENT, CONTENT LINKED TO OR ASSOCIATED WITH ANY NFTS, OR ANY NFTS YOU INTERACT WITH USING OUR SERVICE OR OUR SERVICE PROVIDERS’ SERVERS ARE FREE OF VIRUSES OR OTHER HARMFUL COMPONENTS. WE CANNOT GUARANTEE THE SECURITY OF ANY DATA THAT YOU DISCLOSE ONLINE. NO ADVICE OR INFORMATION, WHETHER ORAL OR OBTAINED FROM THE ORBIT.ART PARTIES OR THROUGH THE SERVICE, WILL CREATE ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION NOT EXPRESSLY MADE HEREIN. YOU ACCEPT THE INHERENT SECURITY RISKS OF PROVIDING INFORMATION AND DEALING ONLINE OVER THE INTERNET AND WILL NOT HOLD ORBIT.ART RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY BREACH OF SECURITY.

WE WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE OR LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY LOSS AND TAKE NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR, AND WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR, ANY USE OF NFTS, CONTENT, AND/OR CONTENT LINKED TO OR ASSOCIATED WITH NFTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY LOSSES, DAMAGES, OR CLAIMS ARISING FROM: (A) USER ERROR, INCORRECTLY CONSTRUCTED TRANSACTIONS, OR MISTYPED ADDRESSES; (B) SERVER FAILURE OR DATA LOSS; (C) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS OR USE; (D) ANY UNAUTHORIZED THIRD-PARTY ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE USE OF VIRUSES, PHISHING, BRUTEFORCING OR OTHER MEANS OF ATTACK AGAINST THE SERVICE OR NFTS.

NFTS EXIST ONLY BY VIRTUE OF THE OWNERSHIP RECORD MAINTAINED IN THE ASSOCIATED BLOCKCHAIN (E.G., ETHEREUM AND SOLANA NETWORK). ANY TRANSFERS OR SALES OCCUR ON THE ASSOCIATED BLOCKCHAIN (E.G., ETHEREUM AND SOLANA). ORBIT.ART AND/OR ANY OTHER ORBIT.ART PARTY CANNOT EFFECT OR OTHERWISE CONTROL THE TRANSFER OF TITLE OR RIGHT IN ANY NFTS OR UNDERLYING OR ASSOCIATED CONTENT OR ITEMS.

NO ORBIT.ART PARTY IS RESPONSIBLE OR LIABLE FOR ANY SUSTAINED LOSSES OR INJURY DUE TO VULNERABILITY OR ANY KIND OF FAILURE, ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR OF SOFTWARE (E.G., WALLET, SMART CONTRACT), BLOCKCHAINS OR ANY OTHER FEATURES OF THE NFTS. NO ORBIT.ART PARTY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LOSSES OR INJURY DUE TO LATE REPORTS BY DEVELOPERS OR REPRESENTATIVES (OR NO REPORT AT ALL) OF ANY ISSUES WITH THE BLOCKCHAIN SUPPORTING THE NFTS, INCLUDING FORKS, TECHNICAL NODE ISSUES OR ANY OTHER ISSUES HAVING LOSSES OR INJURY AS A RESULT.

Some jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion of implied warranties in contracts with consumers, so the above exclusion may not apply to you.

Assumption of Risk

You accept and acknowledge:

The value of an NFTs is subjective. Prices of NFTs are subject to volatility and fluctuations in the price of cryptocurrency can also materially and adversely affect NFT prices. You acknowledge that you fully understand this subjectivity and volatility and that you may lose money.

A lack of use or public interest in the creation and development of distributed ecosystems could negatively impact the development of those ecosystems and related applications, and could therefore also negatively impact the potential utility of NFTs.

The regulatory regime governing blockchain technologies, non-fungible tokens, cryptocurrency, and other crypto-based items is uncertain, and new regulations or policies may materially adversely affect the development of the Service and the utility of NFTs.

You are solely responsible for determining what, if any, taxes apply to your transactions. Orbit.art is not responsible for determining the taxes that apply to your NFTs.

There are risks associated with purchasing items associated with content created by third parties through peer-to-peer transactions, including but not limited to, the risk of purchasing counterfeit items, mislabeled items, items that are vulnerable to metadata decay, items on smart contracts with bugs, and items that may become untransferable. You represent and warrant that you have done sufficient research before making any decisions to sell, obtain, transfer, or otherwise interact with any NFTs or accounts/collections.

We do not control the public blockchains that you are interacting with and we do not control certain smart contracts and protocols that may be integral to your ability to complete transactions on these public blockchains. Additionally, blockchain transactions are irreversible and Orbit.art has no ability to reverse any transactions on the blockchain.

There are risks associated with using Internet and blockchain based products, including, but not limited to, the risk associated with hardware, software, and Internet connections, the risk of malicious software introduction, and the risk that third parties may obtain unauthorized access to your third-party wallet or Account. You accept and acknowledge that Orbit.art will not be responsible for any communication failures, disruptions, errors, distortions or delays you may experience when using the Service or any Blockchain network, however caused.

The Service relies on third-party platforms and/or vendors. If we are unable to maintain a good relationship with such platform providers and/or vendors; if the terms and conditions or pricing of such platform providers and/or vendors change; if we violate or cannot comply with the terms and conditions of such platforms and/or vendors; or if any of such platforms and/or vendors loses market share or falls out of favor or is unavailable for a prolonged period of time, access to and use of the Service will suffer.

Orbit.art reserves the right to hide collections, contracts, and items affected by any of these issues or by other issues. Items you purchase may become inaccessible on Orbit.art. Under no circumstances shall the inability to view items on Orbit.art or an inability to use the Service in conjunction with the purchase, sale, or transfer of items available on any blockchains serve as grounds for a claim against Orbit.art.

If you have a dispute with one or more users, YOU RELEASE US FROM CLAIMS, DEMANDS, AND DAMAGES OF EVERY KIND AND NATURE, KNOWN AND UNKNOWN, ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH SUCH DISPUTES. IN ENTERING INTO THIS RELEASE YOU EXPRESSLY WAIVE ANY PROTECTIONS (WHETHER STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE) THAT WOULD OTHERWISE LIMIT THE COVERAGE OF THIS RELEASE TO INCLUDE THOSE CLAIMS WHICH YOU MAY KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN YOUR FAVOR AT THE TIME OF AGREEING TO THIS RELEASE.

Limitation of Liability

TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, YOU AGREE THAT IN NO EVENT WILL ORBIT.ART OR ITS SERVICE PROVIDERS BE LIABLE TO YOU OR ANY THIRD PARTY FOR ANY LOST PROFIT OR ANY INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, EXEMPLARY, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARISING FROM THESE TERMS OR THE SERVICE, PRODUCTS OR THIRD-PARTY SITES AND PRODUCTS, OR FOR ANY DAMAGES RELATED TO LOSS OF REVENUE, LOSS OF PROFITS, LOSS OF BUSINESS OR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS, LOSS OF USE, LOSS OF GOODWILL, OR LOSS OF DATA, AND WHETHER CAUSED BY STRICT LIABILITY OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), BREACH OF CONTRACT, OR OTHERWISE, EVEN IF FORESEEABLE AND EVEN IF ORBIT.ART OR ITS SERVICE PROVIDERS HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES; OR (B) FOR ANY OTHER CLAIM, DEMAND, OR DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM OR ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THESE TERMS OF THE DELIVERY, USE, OR PERFORMANCE OF THE SERVICE. ACCESS TO, AND USE OF, THE SERVICE, PRODUCTS OR THIRD-PARTY SITES, AND PRODUCTS ARE AT YOUR OWN DISCRETION AND RISK, AND YOU WILL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE TO YOUR COMPUTER SYSTEM OR MOBILE DEVICE OR LOSS OF DATA RESULTING THEREFROM.

NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY CONTAINED HEREIN, IN NO EVENT SHALL THE MAXIMUM AGGREGATE LIABILITY OF ORBIT.ART ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THESE TERMS, THE ACCESS TO AND USE OF THE SERVICE, CONTENT, NFTS, OR ANY ORBIT.ART PRODUCTS OR SERVICES EXCEED THE GREATER OF (A) $100 OR (B) THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY ORBIT.ART FOR ITS SERVICE DIRECTLY RELATING TO THE ITEMS THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE CLAIM. THE FOREGOING LIMITATIONS WILL APPLY EVEN IF THE ABOVE STATED REMEDY FAILS OF ITS ESSENTIAL PURPOSE.

Some jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion or limitation of incidental or consequential damages, so the above limitation or exclusion may not apply to you. Some jurisdictions also limit disclaimers or limitations of liability for personal injury from consumer products, so this limitation may not apply to personal injury claims.

Privacy Policy

Please refer to our Privacy Policy for information about how we collect, use, and share personal data about you. By submitting personal data through our Service, you agree to the terms of our Privacy Policy and you expressly consent to the collection, use, and disclosure of your personal data in accordance with the Privacy Policy.

Modifications to the Service

We reserve the right in our sole discretion to modify, suspend, or discontinue, temporarily or permanently, the Service (or any features or parts thereof) at any time and without liability as a result.

Dispute Resolution. Please read the following arbitration agreement in this Section (“Arbitration Agreement”) carefully. It requires you to arbitrate disputes with Orbit.art and limits the manner in which you can seek relief from us. This section does not govern disputes between users or between users and third parties. Orbit.art does not provide dispute resolution services for such disagreements and the parties must resolve those disputes directly.

Applicability of Arbitration Agreement. You agree that any dispute, controversy, or claim relating in any way to your access or use of the Service, to any products sold or distributed through the Service, or to any aspect of your relationship with Orbit.art, will be resolved by binding arbitration, rather than in court, including threshold questions of the arbitrability of such dispute, controversy, or claim except that (1) you or Orbit.art may assert claims in small claims court, but only if the claims qualify, the claims remain only in such court, and the claims remain on an individual, non-representative, and non-class basis; and (2) you or Orbit.art may seek injunctive or equitable relief in a court of proper jurisdiction if the claim relates to intellectual property infringement or other misuse of intellectual property rights.

Dispute resolution process. You and Orbit.art both agree to engage in good-faith efforts to resolve disputes prior to either party initiating an arbitration, small claims court proceeding, or equitable relief for intellectual property infringement. You must initiate this dispute resolution process by sending a letter describing the nature of your claim and desired resolution to Orbit.art. Both parties agree to meet and confer personally, by telephone, or by videoconference (hereinafter “Conference”) to discuss the dispute and attempt in good faith to reach a mutually beneficial outcome that avoids the expenses of arbitration or, where applicable, litigation. If you are represented by counsel, your counsel may participate in the Conference as well, but you agree to fully participate in the Conference. Likewise, if Orbit.art is represented by counsel, its counsel may participate in the Conference as well, but Orbit.art agrees to have a company representative fully participate in the Conference. The statute of limitations and any filing fee deadlines shall be tolled while the parties engage in the informal dispute resolution process and Conference required by this paragraph. If the parties do not reach agreement to resolve the dispute within thirty (30) days after initiation of this dispute resolution process, either party may commence arbitration, file an action in small claims court, or file a claim for injunctive or equitable relief in a court of proper jurisdiction for matters relating to intellectual property infringement, if the claims qualify.

Authority of Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall have exclusive authority to (a) determine the scope and enforceability of this Arbitration Agreement and (b) resolve any dispute related to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability, or formation of this Arbitration Agreement including, but not limited to, any claim that all or any part of this Arbitration Agreement is void or voidable. The arbitration will decide the rights and liabilities, if any, of you and Orbit.art. The arbitration proceeding will not be consolidated with any other matters or joined with any other cases or parties. The arbitrator shall have the authority to grant motions dispositive of all or part of any claim. The arbitrator shall have the authority to award monetary damages and to grant any non-monetary remedy or relief available to an individual under applicable law, the arbitral forum’s rules, and these Terms. The arbitrator shall issue a written award and statement of decision describing the essential findings and conclusions on which the award is based, including the calculation of any damages awarded. The arbitrator has the same authority to award relief on an individual basis that a judge in a court of law would have. The award of the arbitrator is final and binding upon you and us.

Waiver of Jury Trial. YOU AND ORBIT.ART HEREBY WAIVE ANY CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHTS TO SUE IN COURT AND HAVE A TRIAL IN FRONT OF A JUDGE OR A JURY. You and Orbit.art are instead electing that all claims and disputes shall be resolved by arbitration under this Arbitration Agreement, except as specified in the second bullet of this Section 16, above (“Applicability of Arbitration Agreement”). An arbitrator can award on an individual basis the same damages and relief as a court and must follow these Terms as a court would. However, there is no judge or jury in arbitration, and court review of an arbitration award is subject to very limited review.

Waiver of Class Actions and Class Arbitrations. ALL CLAIMS AND DISPUTES WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THIS ARBITRATION AGREEMENT MUST BE ARBITRATED ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS AND NOT ON A REPRESENTATIVE OR COLLECTIVE CLASS BASIS. ONLY INDIVIDUAL RELIEF IS AVAILABLE, AND CLAIMS OF MORE THAN ONE USER, PERSON, OR ENTITY CANNOT BE ARBITRATED OR CONSOLIDATED WITH THOSE OF ANY OTHER USER, PERSON, OR ENTITY. Accordingly, under the arbitration procedures outlined in this section, an arbitrator shall not combine or consolidate more than one party’s claims without the written consent of all affected parties to an arbitration proceeding. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, you and Orbit.art agree that no dispute shall proceed by way of class arbitration without the written consent of all affected parties. 

Severability. Except as provided in this Section, if any part or parts of this Arbitration Agreement are found under the law to be invalid or unenforceable, then such specific part or parts shall be of no force and effect and shall be severed and the remainder of the Arbitration Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.

Survival of Agreement. This Arbitration Agreement will survive the termination of your relationship with Orbit.art.

Modification. Notwithstanding any provision in these Terms to the contrary, we agree that if Orbit.art makes any future material change to this Arbitration Agreement, you may reject that change within thirty (30) days of such change becoming effective by writing to Orbit.art.

Termination

If you breach any of the provisions of these Terms, all licenses granted by Orbit.art will terminate automatically. Additionally, notwithstanding anything contained in these Terms, we reserve the right, with or without notice and in our sole discretion, to suspend, disable, terminate, or delete your Account and/or your ability to access or use the Service (or any part of the foregoing) at any time and for any or no reason, and you acknowledge and agree that we shall have no liability or obligation to you in such event and that you will not be entitled to a refund of any amounts that you have already paid to us.

Severability

If any term, clause, or provision of these Terms is held invalid or unenforceable, then that term, clause, or provision will be severable from these Terms and will not affect the validity or enforceability of any remaining part of that term, clause, or provision, or any other term, clause, or provision of these Terms.

Injunctive Relief

You agree that a breach of these Terms will cause irreparable injury to Orbit.art for which monetary damages would not be an adequate remedy and Orbit.art shall be entitled to equitable relief in addition to any remedies it may have hereunder or at law without a bond, other security, or proof of damages.

Survival

All sections which by their nature should survive the termination of these Terms shall continue in full force and effect subsequent to and notwithstanding any termination of these Terms by Orbit.art or you. Termination will not limit any of Orbit.art’s other rights or remedies at law or in equity.

Miscellaneous

These Terms constitute the entire agreement between you and Orbit.art relating to your access to and use of the Service. These Terms, and any rights and licenses granted hereunder, may not be transferred or assigned by you without the prior written consent of Orbit.art, and Orbit.art’s failure to assert any right or provision under these Terms shall not constitute a waiver of such right or provision. No waiver by either party of any breach or default hereunder shall be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding or subsequent breach or default. The section headings used herein are for reference only and shall not be read to have any legal effect.

Except as otherwise provided herein, these Terms are intended solely for the benefit of the parties and are not intended to confer third-party beneficiary rights upon any other person or entity.