Tilly Russ (1984) states that a clause attributive de juridiction inserted in a contract (e.g., a bill of lading) is opposable to third parties who succeed to rights and obligations, provided the succession is valid under the law governing the assignment.

Prepare for the DIPR Jurisprudence Test. Utilize flashcards, multiple-choice questions, and comprehensive explanations to enhance your understanding and readiness for the exam.

The key idea is that a forum clause binds those who step into the contractual rights and obligations only if the transfer of those rights and obligations is valid under the law that governs the transfer itself. When a party later acquires the contract rights (an assignment), the successor inherits the same clause only if the assignment is recognized as valid by the law applicable to that assignment. If the succession is valid, the clause operates against the successor just as it did against the original party. If the assignment isn’t valid under that law, the forum clause cannot bind the successor. That is why the correct statement says the clause is opposable to successors provided the succession is valid under the law applicable to the assignment. A separate novation isn’t required for enforceability if the assignment itself is valid, and saying it’s never opposable contradicts the conditions for a valid transfer.