«This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and is subject to the laws of the State of New York that apply to agreements that are to be entered into and performed exclusively in that State, without application or reference to principles of conflict of laws law.» In early 2016, the First Applicant and the First Defendant signed a Marketing Service Agreement (MSA) so that the First Plaintiff could provide media services to the First Company. The second accused did not sign the MSA. The jurisdiction clause of the MSA states that the agreement must be governed by the laws of India and that the courts of Bangalore (India) have exclusive jurisdiction over disputes. (b) Nothing in this clause limits party A`s right to bring an action against party B in another competent court, including third-party proceedings, and the commencement or continuation of proceedings in one or more jurisdictions shall not preclude the simultaneous or non-simultaneous commencement of a dispute in another jurisdiction. if and to the extent permitted by applicable law. In some jurisdictions, the parties are free to choose the applicable law of that jurisdiction and the use of their courts. However, for reasons of efficiency of justice and public order, many courts require at least some contact with this court[2]. Many states in the United States need some contact before the state remediats its courts or enforces its law. It is significant that the State of New York has a legal exemption for contracts valued at more than $250,000; In other words, parties to a contract can choose New York law as the applicable law, even if there is no contact with the State of New York, as long as the minimum value of the contract is $250,000.

New York State has conferred this legal advantage on the international business community, given that New York State is a global business and funding center with an excellent judicial system[3]. The UK`s position is that the EU regime will no longer apply after leaving the EU. . . .