My understanding of this type of clause is not that it makes New York the arbitrator, but rather clarifies for whoever does arbitrate that New York laws should be used. This seems important when working across national (or state) boundries do prevent ambiguity as to what set of laws is being used.
I suspect that it is simmilar to copying the relevent laws into a contract and signing that, which is to say that local laws still apply.
>My understanding of this type of clause is not that it makes New York the arbitrator, but rather clarifies for whoever does arbitrate that New York laws should be used.
I agree, but it would make sense, then that since the New York legal system is the final interpreter of New York law, then that would be where lawsuits would go.
Not necessarily. It just means that whatever court does hear the case will apply New York law to it, because those are the rules the contracting parties have agreed to use, whether that court be in New York, California, or Scotland.
Having the case actually heard in NY simplifies the application of NY law, but it's probably more for convenience: the parties know that if they have to litigate, they don't need to find new attorney's at some random location.
My understanding of this type of clause is not that it makes New York the arbitrator, but rather clarifies for whoever does arbitrate that New York laws should be used. This seems important when working across national (or state) boundries do prevent ambiguity as to what set of laws is being used.
I suspect that it is simmilar to copying the relevent laws into a contract and signing that, which is to say that local laws still apply.