Our state requires law of SC as the relevant law.  In all contracts we have
signed, I have either been able to get the provider to agree to this, or,
if their lawyers will not agree, then to just omit the sentence and leave
the entire question open.  Omitting it seems to keep both our lawyers and
their lawyers happy--or at least content.  If there ever is a court case
involving contracts with the sentence omitted, part of it will be
determinig jurisdiction.

JoAnne
*******************************************************************
JoAnne Deeken
Head, Acquisitions Unit
Clemson University
R.M. Cooper Library
Box 343001
Clemson, SC 29634-3001
V(864)656-1114
F(864)656-7156
djoanne@clemson.edu
*******************************************************************

Steve Murden wrote:
>I hope someone else has encountered (and resolved) this issue.  Because of
>the pending gargantuan increase in Lexis/Nexis costs for academic libraries,
>we are exploring other options for accessing the same information online.
>One of the tools we are considering is Westlaw.
>
>We requested a trial period, and received and returned the appropriate
>license. The agreement states that any claims would be "litigated under the
>law of Minnesota".  Our legal people substituted "Virginia" for Minnesota.
>Westlaw has told us that they will not accept this change, and our legal
>people apparently insist on it.
>
>Has anyone else navigated around this issue?  Surely, our issue is not an
>uncommon one.  Or is Westlaw content to restrict usage of their product to
>just Minnesota?  I should point out that we do not have a law school,
>although we do have a significant number of courses that utilize legal
>research tools.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Steve Murden
>Virginia Commonwealth University
>smurden@gems.vcu.edu