Received wisdom holds that a United States court, in sharp contrast to an English court,1 generally will not give effect to a bill of lading clause granting exclusive jurisdiction to a foreign forum.2 There is ample judicial authority to support both halves of this generalization.3 When one looks beyond what the courts say, to examine what the courts actually do, however, the contrast between the two countries is not always so clear. Although U.S. courts declare that a carrier may not enforce a choice of forum clause when the bill of lading is subject by law to the U.S. Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1936, carriers often achieve the same result by indirect means. English courts, on the other hand, appear to retain jurisdiction in bill of lading cases about as often as they give effect to the choice of forum clause by declining jurisdiction. Furthermore, not only do each country’s courts depart in practice from the received wisdom’s generalizations, but the criteria they use to make their decisions are remarkably similar. It may be appropriate, therefore, to re-examine some of the widely accepted conclusions about the law governing choice of forum clauses. United States and English law, as actually practised in this area, may turn out to be more similar than commentators have suggested.