New Case Mandates Specific Language in Dispute Forum Clauses by Drew W. Colby

more+
less-

The Massachusetts Appeals Court has just issued a controversial decision, Boland v. George S. May International Company, affecting “choice of forum” contract clauses wherein the parties identify the state having jurisdiction over disputes. Specifically, even if the parties’ choice of forum clause identifies a particular state, Massachusetts might not honor that selection. Each Massachusetts company doing business with out-of-state companies should review its choice of forum clause in light of the Boland case to ensure its disputes are resolved in the jurisdiction specified in the contract.

The Boland case involved the interpretation of a choice of forum contract clause that read: “Jurisdiction shall vest in the State of Illinois.” Despite the clear intent of the clause, the Massachusetts company filed its complaint in Massachusetts. The Illinois company sought to dismiss the complaint because it was not filed in Illinois in accordance with the choice of forum clause. The Court of Appeals held Massachusetts had “concurrent” jurisdiction because the choice of forum clause did not specify Illinois had “exclusive” jurisdiction.

Please see full article below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Published In: Civil Procedure Updates, General Business Updates

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Partridge Snow & Hahn LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »