Search

Since Erie Railroad Company v. Tompkins, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that federal courts should generally follow state law if not doing so would significantly affect the outcome of the case. This principle suggests that federal courts should apply state law to determine the enforceability of forum selection clauses. Although seemingly mundane, these clauses can make or break a lawsuit. If a clause is enforced, the suit must be filed in a different location. This change in location affects the procedures that will be applied, the substantive law, and the overall cost of litigation. In extreme cases, enforcing a forum selection clause may lead the plaintiff to abandon the case altogether. Although these clauses are critically important, and although they frequently have a major impact on a case, the federal courts do not follow state law to determine whether they should be enforced. Instead, they apply federal common law. In this Article, we illustrate the real-world consequences of this decision. We draw upon a hand-collected dataset of hundreds of state and federal court decisions to show that federal courts sitting in diversity enforce forum selection clauses at a higher rate than state courts in virtually every state and every federal circuit. This divergence presents obvious opportunities for forum shopping between state and federal courts in the same state. And yet the federal courts continue to apply federal law to determine the enforceability of these clauses. The solution to this problem, we argue, is simple. Federal courts should apply state law to determine whether a forum selection clause is enforceable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The decision provides guidance on the law governing the interpretation of a forum-selection clause under the PILA. Subject to a specific and deviating choice of law that applies to the forumselection clause, and if there is both a jurisdiction clause and a choice-of-law clause, the law that applies to the main contract also applies to the interpretation of the forum-selection clause. While this decision provides more predictability and reduces the likelihood for disputes, it is not comprehensive. The decision also confirms that the more flexible rules applying to the interpretation of arbitration agreements do not apply to forum selection clauses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Article unpacks and offers a new perspective on the test of reasonableness envisaged under The Bremen and its role in policing forum selection clauses in U.S. courts. It concludes that FSCs should control in all situations unless their enforcement "manifestly" clashes with the right to access justice or those rights that capture the fundamental social and economic values of the forum that has a clear interest in the trial of the dispute. This reading of the Bremen converges substantially with the enforcement system of Forum Selection Clauses (FSC) under the Hague Convention on the Exclusive Choice of Court Agreements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses several court cases involving dispute among parties over leases in relation to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) in the U.S. Some of these cases include Butcher v. Ward which focused on vicarious liability, Avila v. Relocation Express LLC which highlighted the forum selection clause in an equipment lease, and Sandstone Springs LLC v. Virag Distribution LLC which focused on the rights of assignees.

The article proposes a contractual approach to choice of law rules for forum selection clauses. Topics discussed are application of forum law in Anglo-American courts and literature and to questions of validity and interpretation of forum selection clauses, difficulty to anticipate which law will be applied to forum selection clause, application of the procedural and jurisdictional characteristics of forum selection clauses in civil law thinking, and effect of overriding mandatory provisions.

In Atlantic Marine Construction Company v. United States District Court, the Supreme Court held that a "contractually valid" forum selection clause should be enforced by federal courts absent extraordinary circumstances. Unfortunately, the Court provided no guidance on how to assess whether a clause is "contractually valid." This Article fills the gap. It argues that the answer to this question turns on three separate inquiries. First, a court should determine whether the forum selection clause is valid. Second, the court should interpret the forum selection clause to determine whether it is exclusive and applies to the claims asserted. Third, the court should evaluate whether the forum selection clause is enforceable. Until each of these inquiries is complete, it is impossible to know whether a clause is "contractually valid" as that term is used in Atlantic Marine. The third inquiry--relating to enforceability--is arguably the most complex. In an attempt to demystify it, the Article draws upon an original, hand-collected dataset of 658 federal cases decided after Atlantic Marine to evaluate how the federal courts resolve cases where one party challenges the enforceability of a forum selection clause. The cases in this dataset show that forum selection clauses are enforced roughly eighty-eight percent of the time. They also show that federal courts are reluctant to strike down forum selection clauses for being unreasonable. This reluctance, combined with other doctrinal innovations that favor the enforcement of these clauses, means that the current legal regime overwhelmingly and unduly favors the large corporations that write forum selection clauses into their agreements with customers and employees. In an attempt to address this imbalance, the Article urges the lower federal courts to adopt a number of specific reforms--none of which requires intervention by Congress or the Supreme Court--that would help to level the playing field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a survey of case law developments on equipment leases, personal property financings and third party rights or interests under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The cases covered include lease damages in AVT New Jersey LP v. Cubitac Corp., vicarious liability in Nelson v. Centerline Car Rentals Inc., forum selection clause in Gehrmann v. Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Inc., and hell-or-high-water clause in Prospect ECHN Inc. v. Winthrop Resources Corp.

The article focuses on United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Legislative Guide addressing the treatment of enterprise groups in insolvency. It mentions European Union taken steps to build out its Insolvency Regulation with provisions facilitating cooperation between multiple related corporate debtors. It also mentions forum selection and ongoing international market-for corporate reorganization.

The article focuses on decisions at the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC) in which the contours of each forum's jurisdiction to hear Other Transaction Agreements (OTA) protests. It mentions forums in which a party may file an OTA protest and will discuss the current state of the law with respect to each forum. It also mentions use of OTAs and will make a case for a clear congressional grant of jurisdiction to the GAO and the COFC.

When a party breaches a forum selection clause, a court will normally dismiss the action, therefore forcing the breaching party to re‐file in the appropriate forum, or the court will transfer the proceedings to the chosen court. Either way, the nonbreaching party appears to have gotten what he wanted: litigation to proceed before the designated court. However, to get there, the nonbreaching party had to outlay significant expenditures in the form of attorneys' fees. Are these attorneys' fees recoverable as damages? Should they be? This Article argues that attorneys' fees associated with remedying a breach of a forum selection clause should be recoverable as damages flowing from the breach. Without the prospect of having to pay damages, the breaching party would be permitted to breach a forum selection clause with impunity. In other words, there is no downside to breaching a forum selection clause. Best case scenario, the non‐designated court retains jurisdiction; worst case scenario, the breaching party is "sent" to the contractually‐designated forum. Awarding attorneys' fees for breach of a forum selection clause does not run afoul of the American Rule, which requires each side to bear their own costs and attorneys' fees. This is because attorneys' fees for breach of a forum selection clause are a measure of direct damages—and not consequential damages—and therefore do not implicate the American Rule. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on choice of law in the American Courts in 2020 with development or understanding of conflicts law with a deeper connection to forum selection clauses with extraterritoriality of labor laws.

The article presents several judicial decisions of interest to mergers and acquisitions practitioners in the U.S. as of June 2021. Topics discussed include the case In re Anthem-Cigna Merger Litigation on the damages entitlement of parties in light of breaches of pre-closing covenants, the issue of application of non-California forum selection clauses in Handoush v. Lease Finance Group LLC, and the stockholders agreement provision in Manti Holdings LLC v. Authentix Acquisition Co.

A forum selection clause is a contractual provision that selects a court for future disputes. Such clauses serve two primary functions. First, they may be used to redirect litigation from one state to another (an "outbound" clause). Second, they may be used to extend the personal jurisdiction of the chosen court over the contracting parties (an "inbound" clause). To date, scholars have focused most of their attention on the redirecting function played by outbound clauses. In this Article, we provide a definitive account of the role played by inbound clauses as means of obtaining personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants. This account is based on our review of 283 published and unpublished state court cases where the defendant challenged the enforceability of an inbound forum selection clause. We show that state courts currently enforce inbound clauses in the overwhelming majority of cases. They enforce them in consumer contracts of adhesion. They enforce them where the identity of the chosen jurisdiction is not clearly spelled out. And they enforce them when the chosen forum is extremely inconvenient. The end result is a legal regime where distant courts routinely assert personal jurisdiction over weaker contracting parties on the basis of inbound forum selection clauses. This state of affairs is inequitable and unjust. To remedy the situation, this Article advances several proposals to reform the existing law in this area. First, we argue that courts should not enforce inbound clauses against unsophisticated actors in contracts of adhesion. Second, we argue that courts should not enforce these clauses when there is no way for the defendant to identify the chosen jurisdiction at the time of signing. Lastly, we argue that courts should not enforce these clauses when the chosen court is not in a reasonably convenient location. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent cases highlight two persistent problems in United States litigation: the frequency with which parties seek to validate an otherwise unenforceable provision through a choice-of-law clause, and the disparate results courts have reached in such cases. These problems, while not wholly new, have recently become more troublesome and widespread. Courts, however, have not grown more consistent in their approach to them. On the contrary, they increasingly reach varied results on highly similar facts, resulting in endless legal uncertainty, forum shopping, and doubts about judicial impartiality. These effects are all the more problematic because, as most conflicts scholars would agree, parties should not be allowed to choose a jurisdiction's law solely for the purpose of validating a contested contractual provision; indeed, permitting them to do so is at odds with most purposes of contractual choice-of-law enforcement. For this reason, this Article proposes that, rather than fall back on complicated public policy exceptions to contractual choice of law, courts should instead identify and refuse to apply choice-of-law clauses that are adopted for the purpose of making a separate contractual provision enforceable. This Article refers to such clauses as "substance-targeted." Courts typically do not distinguish between targeted and non-targeted choice-of-law clauses. As a result, targeted clauses are often treated as if they represent an ordinary instance of allowing contracting parties the autonomy to choose the law applicable to their dispute. Yet they involve meaningfully different considerations, both because of the reasons that parties choose to include them and because of their ultimate effects. Unlike conventional choice-of-law clauses, substance-targeted clauses are neither aimed at achieving predictability nor likely to result in it. Their frequent use encourages litigation, disadvantages weaker parties, and fosters fear about resultsoriented reasoning when their enforceability is tested. These pernicious effects call for a fundamentally different approach to choice-of-law analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the reasons why providing mandatory arbitration bylaws to address federal securities law disputes violates state corporate law in the U.S. Other topics include the limits of forum selection bylaws, the importance of the mechanics of corporate class actions to corporations, stockholders and academics, and the issue of whether federal securities transactions are part of the internal affairs of corporations.

The article focuses on brief history of third-party litigation finance (TPLF) to frame the current debate and concludes with a word about the place of choice-of-law and forum selection provisions in TPLF agreements. It mentions case law to show that choice-of-law and forum selection clauses are no protection for litigation funders. It also mentions way forward for TPLF, offering both normative and practical solutions to the dilemma.

The article focuses on judicial law discusses several key legal decisions and developments in the eight Circuit. It touches on various aspects of civil litigation, including appellate jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, expert witness testimony, motion to disqualify judges, forum selection clauses, and sealing of court documents. It provides insights into how the courts have handled these issues and their impact on legal proceedings.

North Dakota's prohibition on trade restriction has been described by the North Dakota Supreme Court as "one of the oldest and most continuous applications of public policy in contract law." In a unanimous decision, the court upheld North Dakota's longstanding public policy against non-compete agreements by refusing to enforce an employment contract's choice-of-law and form-selection provisions. In Osborne v. Brown & Saenger, Inc., the court held: (1) as a matter of first impression, dismissal for improper venue on the basis of a forum-selection clause is reviewed de novo. (2) employment contract's choice-of-law and forum-selection clause was unenforceable to the extent the provision would allow employers to circumvent North Dakota's strong prohibition on non-compete agreements; and (3) the non-competition clause in the employment contract was unenforceable. This case is not only significant to North Dakota legal practitioners, but to anyone contracting with someone who lives and works in North Dakota. This decision affirms the state's enduring ban of non-compete agreements while shutting the door on contracting around the issue through forum-selection provisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many contracts that contain a forum selection clause also contain a choice of law clause. This raises the issue of whether to apply the parties' chosen law to questions of forum selection clause interpretation, such as whether the clause is mandatory or permissive and how far the scope of the clause extends. The recent trend has been for courts to apply the law selected by the parties in their choice of law clause to govern these interpretation issues. This Article argues that the law has gone in the wrong direction and that courts should apply forum law to questions of forum selection clause interpretation. This Article challenges each of the stated rationales in favor of applying the parties' chosen law to interpret a forum selection clause: the party autonomy argument; the intention of the parties argument; the certainty and predictability argument; the substance versus procedure argument; the "part of the contract" argument; and the forum shopping argument. None of the purported arguments in favor of applying the parties' chosen law stand up to closer scrutiny. Additionally, this Article examines the myriad complications presented by interpreting a forum selection clause in conjunction with a choice of law clause. Foremost among these is the sheer complexity of the exercise. Particularly when it comes to applying foreign country law, there is uncertainty over exactly what the "chosen law" is. If the parties have selected the law of a European Union country, for instance, there are a variety of possible laws that could apply: internal domestic law, the Brussels Regulation, the Hague Choice of Court Convention, or some combination thereof. Additional complications are presented by structural dynamics of the choice of law endeavor: the principle of party prosecution and the differential treatment of forum selection clauses in a contract without a choice of law clause. Finally, when one examines what courts are doing in practice, it is clear that they are not particularly adept at ascertaining and applying the parties' chosen law to interpret a forum selection clause. The net result is a hodge-podge interpretation of mixed U.S. and foreign law. The choice of law exercise is complicated enough. This Article suggests that we need not make it any more complicated by using the parties' chosen law to interpret a preliminary issue. Ultimately, the responsibility is on the parties to draft forum selection clauses clearly and without ambiguity. If they do so, then none of this is an issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The response of UK extradition law and practice to requested persons presenting with mental health disorders is multi-faceted and unnecessarily complex. There are a number of reasons for this. They centre upon the law failing to adequately recognise that mental health cases can give rise to concerns not present in physical health cases. The deficiencies of the law are found in the three applicable bars to extradition; oppression, human rights and forum. They also can be seen in the applicable rules of evidence and the practice of diplomatic assurances. The time has come for UK law to specifically and systematically respond to mental health disorders in the context of extradition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Forum selection clauses are ubiquitous. Historically, the judiciary was hostile to contracts limiting a plaintiff's venue options. The tide has since turned. Today, lower courts routinely enforce such clauses. This Article challenges this reflexive response in the special context of ERISA cases. It mines ERISA's statutory text, rich legislative history, and historical context to supply an in-depth exploration of ERISA's unique policy goal of providing employees "ready access to the Federal courts." The Article then explains how forum selection clauses undermine this goal and thus should be invalid under controlling Supreme Court jurisprudence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on development of shareholder litigation provisions in corporate governance documents in the U.S. Topics discussed include exclusive forum selection provisions for shareholder litigation; Delaware Chancery Court decision in Solak v. Sarowitz court case on same; and approval of use of loser-pays bylaws by Delaware Supreme Court which were proposed by Corporate Law Council of the Delaware State Bar Association for banning fee-shifting provisions in corporate bylaws.

Over the past half century, courts in the United States have developed canons of construction that they use exclusively to construe forum selection clauses. These canons play an important role in determining the meaning of these clauses and, by extension, whether litigation arising out of a particular contract must proceed in a given place. To date, however, these canons have attracted surprisingly little attention in the academic literature. This Article aspires to fill that gap. It provides thefirst comprehensive taxonomy of the canons that U.S. courts use to construe forum selection clauses. These interpretive rules fall into four groups: (i) the canons relating to exclusivity, (2) the. canons relating to scope, (3) the canons relating to non-signatories, and (4) the canons relating to federal court. When a judge is presented with ambiguous language in a forum selection clause, she willfrequently turn to one of these interpretive rules of thumb to resolve the ambiguity. In principle, each of these canons produces outcomes that are broadly consistent with the preferences of most contracting parties. In practice, this is not always the case. Drawing upon interviews and e-mail exchanges with 86 attorneys, the Article shows that several of these canons produce outcomes that are arguably inconsistent with rnajoritarian preferences. In such cases, the Article argues that these canons should be cast aside. In their place, the courts should adopt new interpretive default rules that more closely track the preferences of most contracting parties. The Article's final contribution to the literature relates to contract drafting. If a forum selection clause is unambiguous, there will be no need for the courts to invoke the canons. The Article concludes by urging contracting parties incorporate certain words and phrases into their contracts ex ante so as to avoid incurring the costs associated with litigating their meaning ex post. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the nature of public policy limits to the enforcement of forum selection clauses, recently considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in Douez v Facebook. The public policy factors relied on by the plurality of the Court, inequality of bargaining power and the quasi-constitutional nature of the right at issue, possess neither the doctrinal clarity nor the transnational focus necessary to guide the deployment of public policy in this context. Here, I argue for a public policy exception to the enforcement of forum selection clauses based on the doctrine of mandatory overriding rules. This approach would focus on whether a forum selection clause has the effect of avoiding the application of local norms intended to enjoy mandatory application in the transnational context. This conception of public policy would be a more coherent guide to the exercise of courts' discretion to enforce forum selection clauses in cases like Douez. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines how bespoke discovery can help address wide-reaching concerns about the discovery process an intentionally limited to ex ante agreements. It mentions Federal Rules of Civil Procedure encourage parties to negotiate over the scope of discovery once the litigation is filed and similar to other dispute-resolution provisions such as forum selection provisions or jury trial waivers. It also mentions costs of waiving their discovery rights in litigation.

Multidistrict litigation ("MDL") is an immensely powerful tool. In an MDL, cases that share a common question of fact are consolidated in a single district for pretrial proceedings. MDLs abide by the general principle that governs all transfers within the federal system: because transfer is no more than a "housekeeping measure," an action retains the choice-of-law rules of the state in which it was filed. If a case filed in California is transferred to an MDL pending in Iowa, the transferee court in Iowa applies California's choice-of-law rules. As a result, the cases maintain their identities through the retention of their individual home state's choice-of-law rules. It is thus a critical feature of MDLs-which have far fewer procedural protections than class actions-that transfer to an MDL does not change the applicable law for any individual action. In non-aggregate litigation, this general transfer rule no longer applies, however, when a case is transferred pursuant to a forum-selection clause. Under the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. U.S. District Court, the transferee court applies its own choice-oflaw rules instead. Thus, if a case filed in California is transferred to Iowa in accordance with a forum-selection clause, the transferee court in Iowa applies Iowa's choice-of-law rules. Although Atlantic Marine involved a non-aggregate proceeding, courts have begun to consider whether this principle should control choice of law in complex litigation governed by a forum-selection clause. This Note argues that it should not. To begin, extending Atlantic Marine to the MDL context might allow the fact of consolidation to change the outcome in a case. Doing so would also expand due process concerns already inherent in aggregate proceedings, and MDL is not an appropriate forum in which to allow parties discretion to craft their own rules of dispute resolution. Accordingly, to preserve the integrity of the MDL process, MDL courts should consistently apply the choice-of-law rules of the transferor court, even when an action is governed by a valid forumselection clause. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents several cases to discuss the basic issues in the implementation of respective rights, obligations, interests, and remedies related to equipment financing agreements. Also cited are such topics as true leases, security interest, forum selection clauses, lessor's damages remedies, and the rights of assignees of interests under a lease, as well as the case on rental-purchase agreement, and the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) on the issues.

The article focuses on the forum selection clauses, state law on their use in consumer as well as commercial contracts, and the interpretation of forum selection clauses along with the effect of permissive clauses in state and federal courts of the U.S.

The article focuses on the enhancing transparency of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reasoning regarding forum selection. Topics discussed include judicial review of SEC's constitutional and administrative law claims; enactment of Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and court cases Tilton v. Securities and Exchange Commission and Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich on the same.

This article focuses on the relationship between forum selection clauses, choice of law clauses and data protection and privacy protection. In particular, it discusses the question whether and why jurisdiction and choice of law clauses used in the terms of social media providers should not be enforced against social media users located in a different jurisdiction. The article distinguishes between the contractual, private law analysis and the application of public policy as part of the private international law analysis. The contract law analysis is centred on doctrines such as unconscionability, which in turn examines issue such as fairness and overwhelming bargaining power of one party. By contrast, the public policy analysis in private international law focuses on fundamental rights, legality of contractual clauses according to the local law of the forum and the interests of justice. It is argued here that both aspects (contractual and public policy doctrines) are paramount for achieving not only justice between the parties of a dispute but also ensuring good administration of justice in the public interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Boards and shareholders are increasingly using charter and bylaw provisions to customize their corporate governance. Recent examples include forum selection bylaws, majority voting bylaws, and advance notice bylaws. Relying on the contractual conception of the corporation, Delaware courts have accorded substantial deference to board-adopted bylaw provisions, even those that limit shareholder rights. This Article challenges the rationale for deference under the contractual approach. With respect to corporate bylaws, the Article demonstrates that, under Delaware law, shareholder's power to adopt and amend bylaws is more limited than the board's power to do so. As a result, shareholders cannot effectively constrain the board's adoption of bylaws with which they disagree. The resulting power imbalance offers reasons to question the scope of the contract paradigm. This analysis suggests two alternative solutions. One possibility is for the Delaware courts and legislature to reconsider existing constraints on shareholder power in order to level the playing field between shareholders and directors and fully realize the contractual paradigm. This approach, which would increase shareholder power, has important normative implications. Alternatively, if Delaware law retains the existing limitations on shareholder power, this Article suggests that judicial reliance on the contract metaphor would be misguided and that courts should scrutinize board-adopted bylaws more closely. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the laws regarding forum selection clauses present in choice-of-law question and systems require the chosen court to undertake a choice of-law analysis for selecting the state when law of the forum state.

The article highlights corporate-governance mechanisms designed to reduce the burden of stockholder litigation during corporate mergers. Topics discussed include mechanisms are forum-selection provisions, fee-shifting provisions, and minimum-stake-to-sue provisions under Ohio law; challenges concerning Minimum-stake-to-sue provisions; and decision of the Delaware Court of Chancery in the case "Boilermakers Local 154 Retirement Fund v. Chevron Corp." concerning forum-selection bylaws.

The article examines the U.S. Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) as well as Nebraska law in order to determine if a state or federal forum will be more favorable for Nebraska plaintiffs. It mentions differences between Nebraska Trade Secrets Act and the DTSA and the likely effects on the outcome of a trade secret suit. It also mentions encouraging victims of trade secret misappropriation to file suit in federal court under the DTSA.

Choice of court agreements are widely used. Harmonized private international laws have entered into force recently, namely the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements on 1 October 2015 and the Brussels Ia Regulation on 10 January 2015. Both instruments are formally independent but in the legislative process the drafters of the Convention took notice of the Brussels I Regulation, and the EU legislator took notice of the Convention while working on the Recast of the Brussels I Regulation in order to “strengthen” choice of forum agreements and to bring about “coherence” of the Brussels regime with the Hague Convention. Against this background, the two instruments now in place are compared in respect to their most important policy decisions: the definition of the internationality of the case as a prerequisite of the applicability of the respective instrument, the understanding of the choice-of-law rule on the nullity of the agreement, the scope and mode of a public policy control of the agreement and, most extensively, the respective mechanisms for coordinating parallel proceedings, in particular the new mechanism under the Brussels Ia Regulation granting priority for the designated court. This new mechanism turns out to be too complex, leaving important points open. Therefore,de lege ferendaan alternative mechanism is suggested along the lines of the Hague Convention by making use of the recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) inGothaer Versicherung. This alternative would not only be much easier and thus more predictable, it would also be able to coordinate each and every parallel proceedings, not only those involving a choice of court agreement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the memorandum proposed by the American Bar Association Section of International Law Working Group with the implementation of Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. Topics discussed include role of state law in the area of enforcement of choice of court agreements with forum selection clauses, state uniform act would be applied at the dispute stage in both federal and state courts and it facilitate the international trade and investment.

The article discusses the author's claim that the U.S. Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals should not have jurisdiction of any legal claims involving fraud, and it mentions America's Contract Disputes Act (CDA) of 1978, the nation's False Claims Act, and contract litigation involving the Green Dream Group LLC building performance firm and Daewoo Eng’g & Constr. Co. Ltd. According to the article, a contractor's right to forum selection should be limited to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

The article focuses on examination of the enforceability of forum selection clauses in insurance contracts in the U.S. It informs on balancing test for courts to utilize in determining whether to enforce a forum selection clause in an insurance contract. It also informs on the U.S. Supreme Court case Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute on the same.

We recognize that this Court has not previously given express guidance for the procedure counsel should use for litigating a forum-selection clause, but litigation of a contract-based claim of forum selection should be litigated as all legal claims, in the context of procedural rules guaranteeing that a legal claim may be “carried to an adjudication on the merits.” Specific enforcement of a forum selection clause necessarily depends upon some sort of factual establishment that the clause represents a valid, binding agreement between the parties. While a valid forum selection clause should then be declared enforceable in “all but the most unusual cases,” resolution of that second question will still depend largely on the law, rules of procedure, and policies adhered to in plaintiffs chosen forum, as well as the practitioner’s astuteness in properly placing the forum selection clause at issue in the first place. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses what the author refers to as the order of interpretation that is required by contractual choice-of-law provisions versus the law of the judicial forum where the lawsuit is commenced, and it mentions American state and federal courts, as well as procedural law and the drafting of contracts in the U.S. The New York choice-of-law case Leasecomm Corp. v. Datalink Resources Corp. is examined, along with the Texas Supreme Court forum-selection clause case In re AutoNation Inc.

Canadian courts have started to consider whether and in what circumstances a non-contracting party will be treated as bound by a forum selection clause. This article examines several possible reasons for holding non-parties bound by such clauses and considers how the analysis would unfold in three different contexts: taking jurisdiction, staying proceedings based onforum non conveniens, and obtaining an anti-suit injunction. It draws on recent American decisions which have used both a closely related test and a global-transaction test to hold non-parties bound, considering the extent to which these tests might be adopted by Canadian courts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses several court cases in Missouri as of January 1, 2022. They include Gray v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections which deals with retaliation claim, Marti v. Concrete Coring Co. of North America which states that proper service is required to enter a default judgment, and Luebbering v. Varia wherein the Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District ruled that tort claim was not covered by forum selection clause in the contract.