Readers, I am working on my talk for International Law Week, coming later this month. I’m going to be speaking about waivers of objections to service by postal channels under the Service Convention. I’d love to know your reactions to the following hypotheticals:

  • A. and B. make a contract. A. is a Chinese company (China objects to service under Article 10 of the Convention). A. and B. agree that in the event of a dispute, “the Parties consent to service of process by FedEx, addressed to the chief executive officer of the party to be served.” If B. sues A. and serves by FedEx in China, is the service valid?
  • A. and B. make a contract. A. is a Chinese company (China objects to service under Article 10 of the Convention). A. and B. agree that in the event of a dispute, “service of process shall be by personal delivery to the chief executive officer of the party to be served and shall be made by a deputy U.S. marshal (in the case of service on A.) or by [whatever the Chinese equivalent is] (in the case of service on B).” IF B. sues A. and dispatches the deputy marshal to China to serve the documents, is the service valid?

I am mostly interested to know if folks think these two cases should have different results, and if so, why. Send your comments!

This Post Has 2 Comments

  1. Steve Skulnik

    Where is B.? In the US? If so, why would the agreement provide for a US official to effect service in China and a Chinese official to make service in the US? Seems backwards.

Leave a Reply

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on email

Related Posts

folkman llc banner
Learn more about Ted Folkman and our practice areas. Read Ted’s award-winning blog on international judicial assistance, Letters Blogatory.
Subscribe to our newsletter

Please subscribe to our “Clients and Colleagues” newsletter, which we typically send approximately quarterly.