Two purchasers bought an asset in the Florida and in the purchase agreement it was set that "the parties agree that the terms of this agreement will be applied and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the United States and that all conflicts and disputes that may arise between them concerning this agreement and its execution, will be settled in the competent and appropriate Court for these matters, in the United States, and in accordance with its rules.".
The Court held that the Israel has jurisdiction. In Israel, where an international jurisdiction clause exists, the reference in the agreement should be clear, drafted in an active manner, and specifically stating the jurisdiction as exclusive. However, even if it is found to be a unique and non-parallel jurisdiction clause, in consumer contracts (business to consumer) when there is oppression of the consumer, the Court will not always honor a jurisdiction clause, as opposed to jurisdiction clauses included in business to business contracts, in a similar manner to the caselaw in the European Union. Here, it is a consumer agreement where the wording of the jurisdiction clause is ambiguous, refers to the laws of the United States and Courts in the United States, even though it is a federation and contains many States with different laws, and in any case it is a contract drawn up by the seller without the ability for the purchasers to make changes to it. This situation creates an unfair comparative advantage to the seller for choosing the location of the jurisdiction and therefore the jurisdiction clause must be construed as a parallel jurisdiction and the case me be heard in Israel.