2006 Ohio Revised Code - 1310.04. (UCC 2A-106) Limitation on power of parties to consumer lease to choose applicable law and judicial forum.

§ 1310.04. (UCC 2A-106) Limitation on power of parties to consumer lease to choose applicable law and judicial forum.
 

(A)  If the law chosen by the parties to a consumer lease is that of a jurisdiction other than a jurisdiction in which the lessee resides at the time the lease agreement becomes enforceable or resides within thirty days after the lease agreement becomes enforceable or in which the goods are to be used, the choice of law is not enforceable. 

(B)  If the judicial forum chosen by the parties to a consumer lease is a forum that otherwise would not have jurisdiction over the lessee, the choice of judicial forum is not enforceable. 
 

HISTORY: 144 v H 693. Eff 11-6-92.
 

Not analogous to former RC § 1310.04 (137 v H 1134; 144 v H 332), renumbered RC § 1315.04 in 144 v H 693, eff 11-6-92.

 

Official Comment

Unif. Consumer Credit Code § 1.201(8), 7A U.L.A. 36 (1974). 

Substantially revised. 

1. There is a real danger that a lessor may induce a consumer lessee to agree that the applicable law will be a jurisdiction that has little effective consumer protection, or to agree that the applicable forum will be a forum that is inconvenient for the lessee in the event of litigation. As a result, this section invalidates these choices of law or forum clauses, except where the law chosen is that of the state of the consumer's residence, where the goods will be kept, where the lease is executed by the lessee, or the forum chosen is one that otherwise would have jurisdiction over the lessee. 

2. Subsection (1) limits potentially abusive choice of law clauses in consumer leases. The 30-day rule in subsection (1) was suggested by Section 9-103(1)(c). This section has no effect on choice of law clauses in leases that are not consumer leases. Such clauses would be governed by other law. 

3. Subsection (2) prevents enforcement of potentially abusive jurisdictional consent clauses in consumer leases. By using the term judicial forum, this section does not limit selection of a nonjudicial forum, such as arbitration. This section has no effect on choice of forum clauses in leases that are not consumer leases; such clauses are, as a matter of current law, "prima facie valid". The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 10 (1972). Such clauses would be governed by other law, including the Model Choice of Forum Act (1968).