| dc.description.abstract | While standard form contracts provide a convenient and economical way for a consumer to purchase a cloud services, they facilitate the incorporation of unfair contract terms. Typically, contracts between CSPs and cloud consumers are not subject to effective negotiation. In such contracts, which are prepared by the CSPs in advance, CSPs have all the bargaining power and the consumer has no effective opportunity to negotiate the terms. One of those terms that is included in a cloud contract, is the choice of law and jurisdiction clause. This clause puts the consumer at a disadvantage and discourages him from suing by being compelled to bring his action before the courts in which the CSP has its principle place of business. Therefore, this term might be unfair, for the purposes of the unfair terms regime, as it deters consumers from assertingtheir rights. Also, including such clauses in a cloud contract is contrary to the mandatory rules in the Brussels I and Rome I Regulations that restrict the parties freedom to choose the competent court and the applicable law in consumer contracts. Hence, the present thesis is an attempt to address the aforementioned problem. | eng |