Legal Term for Asymmetric

Information asymmetry is not necessarily a bad thing. Indeed, the growth of information asymmetry is the desired result of a healthy market economy. As workers seek to specialize more and more in the fields they choose, they become more productive and can therefore offer greater value to workers in other fields. In some circumstances, information asymmetry can have quasi-fraudulent consequences, such as adverse selection describing a phenomenon in which an insurance company encounters the probability of an extreme loss due to a risk that was not disclosed at the time of the sale of a policy. Asymmetric jurisdiction clauses provide that one party must bring an action in the courts of a particular jurisdiction, while the other party may bring an action in any jurisdiction. These are often seen in financing documents in favor of lenders and bond trustees who must remain flexible given their global investor base and who may need to defend them or be ordered in legal proceedings outside the borrower`s jurisdiction. In Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (Asia) Limited v Wisdom Top International Limited [2020] HKCFI 322, the Hong Kong court held that an asymmetric jurisdiction clause is not an exclusive choice of court agreement within the meaning of the Mainland China Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 597) (the Order). It should be noted that in January 2019, the Agreement on Mutual Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters was signed by the mainland courts and the HKSAR (2019 Agreement). Upon its entry into force, the 2019 Convention will replace the 2016 Agreement and remove the requirement of an exclusive choice of court agreement.

However, there is no timeline for the implementation of the 2019 Convention by local legislation in Hong Kong, and before its entry into force, parties should therefore consider whether to use asymmetrical jurisdiction clauses in light of this decision. An alternative to the growing asymmetry of information is for employees to explore all areas rather than specialize in areas where they can deliver the most value. However, it is an impractical solution with high opportunity costs and potentially lower overall benefits that would lower living standards. Contractual asymmetry (Law & Economics, Common Law) [De.: Vertrag Asymmetrie, Fr.: asymmetry of the contract, Gr.: Ασυμμετρία σύμβασηs] (See also: contract theory, agent theory, information asymmetry, information economy, incomplete contracts) = the unequal bargaining power of the contracting parties when one party is better informed than the other. A contractual asymmetry can increase the economic efficiency of the transaction for the most informed parties, which runs counter to the notion of social welfare of the contract. If the parties are informed asymmetrically, courts can improve the outcome of the contract by punishing parties who engage in violence and/or fraud or by imposing other restrictions on contracts by amending certain contractual terms or refusing to enforce them in order to enhance the welfare of contracts. In order to prevent abuse of clients or clients by financial specialists, financial markets often rely on reputation mechanisms. Financial advisors and fund companies, which prove to be the most honest and effective managers of their clients` assets, tend to attract clients, while dishonest or ineffective agents tend to lose clients, suffer legal damage, or both.

The Court held that English law was applicable and that the jurisdiction clause was therefore valid. The jurisdiction clause did not allow the plaintiff to bring an action anywhere, as the defendants claimed; It allowed the plaintiff to bring an action in any court that considered itself competent. Such asymmetrical provisions are considered valid in English law and have been regularly applied by the English courts. In order for a certified copy to be issued, the judgment in question must be issued by a court designated in a Hong Kong Court Choice Agreement. Article 3(1) of the Rules defines a «Hong Kong choice of court arrangement» as an agreement that establishes the courts of Hong Kong as the court responsible for resolving a dispute to the exclusion of the courts of other jurisdictions. When documenting transactions under Hong Kong law with a borrower, issuer or guarantor incorporated or having assets in mainland China and where mutual enforcement of Hong Kong`s judgment on land might be required in a default scenario, parties should consider not including an asymmetric jurisdiction clause.