Forum Selection Clause

Table of Contents________________________________________
Overview 3
Issue 4
Rule 4
Analysis 5
America Online, Inc. v. Pasieka 5
Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co. 5
Bruce G. Forrest v. Verizon Communications Inc. and Verizon Internet Services, Inc. 6
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute 7
Dix v. ICT Group Inc. 8
Garware Polyester, Ltd. v. Intermax Trading Corp. 9
Groff v. America Online, Inc. 10
Other Cases 11
Conclusion 12
Bibliography 13 Overview
________________________________________
The legal topic at hand is the forum-selection clause. This clause comes from the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act article 2b section 110. The forum selection clause limits jurisdiction for the parties who enter into an agreement containing the clause. The enforceability of the forum selection clause came to question through the case of Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co in 1972. Despite having a forum-selection clause, courts refused to decline jurisdiction on the basis of forum non convenience. Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co is a precedent setting case which is now used frequently as a way to work around the necessity to adhere to a forum-selection clause. Now the question has arose, what happened to the strength of the forum-selection clause particularly for online based agreements.
Online based contracts are supposed to be held to the same standard as that of their counterpart print contract. However it has become apparent that this is not the case and that despite having a forum selection clause, cases in which online contracts are in question are being tried in jurisdictions other then the forum specified in the forum selection clause. This can be seen in the case of Freedman v. America Online, Inc. Even though a forum selection clause is signed by Freedman stating that cases would be heard in Virginia, a Florida court refused to enforce the forum-selection clause stating that it would undermine the Florida consumer statutes. Issue

Bibliography: ________________________________________ Decisions and Litigation, (1997). Groff v. AOL Retrieved Nov. 20, 2005, from http://legal.web.aol.com/decisions/dlother/groff.html. FindLaw for Legal Professionals. (2005). Retrieved Nov. 20, 2005, from Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute Web site: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/499/585.html. FindLaw for Legal Professionals. (2005). Retrieved Nov. 20, 2005, from Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co Web site: http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/US/407/1.html Goldman, E. (2005). Selected online contracts cases. Retrieved Nov. 23, 2005, from http://eric_goldman.tripod.com/resources/onlinecontractcases.htm. Miller, R., & Jentz, G. (2006). Business Law Today: The Essentials. 7th ed. Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western. National Conference of Commissioners, (2002). Uniform computer information. Retrieved Nov. 09, 2005, from http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/ucita/2002final.htm. Samson, M. H. (2002). Bruce G. Forrest v. Verizon Communications inc. and Verizon Internet Services, inc. Retrieved Nov. 27, 2005, from http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/cases/lib_case390.cfm.