In 2002,Australia's highest court ruled on a defamation case where an Australian citizen claimed to have been defamed by a Dow Jones article published on the defendant's web site.They found:
A) the citizen was defamed but jurisdiction over Dow Jones couldn't be established because the defendant had no physical presence in Australia.
B) the citizen was defamed but jurisdiction over Dow Jones couldn't be established because the defendant's servers were in America and the article had been uploaded in the U.S. so it was considered published in the U.S. and not subject to Australian law.
C) the citizen was defamed and jurisdiction over Dow Jones was established because under American law, the defendant's web site was interactive and sufficiently established minimum contacts creating jurisdiction.
D) the citizen was defamed and publication of the article occurred when the article appeared and could be read on a user's computer screen establishing jurisdiction in Australia
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q67: With regard to international business transactions conducted
Q70: With regard to federal question jurisdiction:
A) the
Q71: Minzer Corp.is considering a law suit against
Q73: Fancy Frames Bicycles,Inc.is a small company in
Q74: Which of the following involves the analysis
Q76: The Supreme Court case of Pennoyer v.Neff
Q77: The Zippo standard requires a case-by-case analysis
A)
Q78: Name the three instances where a federal
Q79: A forum selection clause:
A) is written into
Q80: Mountain Stuff is a Colorado Corporation selling
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents