The Franchise Owner's most trusted news source

Log In / Register | Jul 19, 2018

Comments regarding this article:

Add new comment


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Granville_Bean's picture

don't celebrate just yet...

So apparently the forum selection clause was facially valid all the way through BUT then was overturned anyway, on public policy grounds.  Firstly, this very case could perhaps be appealed.  Secondly, another Federal jurisdiction, or even the same Federal jurisdiction acting on a case involving a different state's laws, could find differently,

This could be big, if it sticks.  BUT we have not seen yet if it would apply to any other states.

Paul Steinberg's picture

Connecticut is rare

Granville's point is well-taken. This particular state has a history of enunciating a strong "public policy" on this matter. Other states are different.

As to what a federal court would do, the answer is clear since Erie: the Erie doctrine requires federal courts to apply the state substantive law. So even a federal court in Podunk which is applying CT law should follow this precedent.

Forum Selection Clause in CT

Does this mean that I have a good chance of having PayPal's motion to dismiss my case for improper venue thrown out? Someone, please let me know. Thank you!

Granville_Bean's picture


"So even a federal court in Podunk which is applying CT law should follow this precedent."

Actually Podunk is in CT.  Or at least the unincorporated hamlet in the township of Guilford that is known as Podunk.