SOURCES OF CONFLICT S OF LAWS:

Family Code: Articles 10, 21, 26, 35, 36, 37, 38, 80, 96, 184, and 187

Civil Code: Articles 14, 15, 16, 17, 815, 816, 818, 819, 829, 1039, 1319, and
1753

Penal Code: Article 2

Corporation Code: Section 133 – Doing Business Without License

Constitution: Art. IV and Art. V, Section 1

Rules of Court: Rule 14 and 39, Section 48, Rule 131, Section 3 (n), 132, Section 25

A. CASES INVOLVING CHOICE OF FORUM

1. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. vs. Shute

499 U.S. 585 (1991) April 17, 1991

Syllabus

After the respondents Shute, a Washington State couple, purchased passage on a ship
owned by petitioner, a Florida-based cruise line, petitioner sent them tickets containing
a clause designating courts in Florida as the agreed-upon fora for the resolution of
disputes. The Shutes boarded the ship in Los Angeles, and, while in international
waters off the Mexican coast, Mrs. Shute suffered injuries when she slipped on a deck
mat. The Shutes filed suit in a Washington Federal District Court, which granted
summary judgment for petitioner. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding, inter alia, that
the forum-selection clause should not be enforced under The Bremen v. Zapata Off-
Shore Co., 407 U. S. 1, because it was not "freely bargained for," and because its
enforcement would operate to deprive the Shutes of their day in court in light of
evidence indicating that they were physically and financially incapable of pursuing the
litigation in Florida.

Held: The Court of Appeals erred in refusing to enforce the forum-selection clause.
Pp. 499 U. S. 590-597.

(a) The Bremen Court's statement that a freely negotiated forum-selection clause, such
as the one there at issue, should be given full effect, 407 U.S. at 407 U. S. 12-13, does
not support the Court of Appeals' determination that a nonnegotiated forum clause in a
passage contract is never enforceable simply because it is not the subject of bargaining.
Whereas it was entirely reasonable for The Bremen Court to have expected the parties
to have negotiated with care in selecting a forum for the resolution of disputes arising
from their complicated international agreement, it would be entirely unreasonable to
assume that a cruise passenger would or could negotiate the terms of a forum clause in
a routine commercial cruise ticket form. Nevertheless, including a reasonable forum
clause in such a form contract well may be permissible for several reasons. Because it
is not unlikely that a mishap in a cruise could subject a cruise line to litigation in several
different fora, the line has a special interest in limiting such fora. Moreover, a clause
establishing ex ante the dispute resolution forum has the salutary effect of dispelling
confusion as to where suits may be brought and defended, thereby sparing litigants time
and expense and conserving judicial resources. Furthermore, it is likely that passengers
purchasing tickets

Page 499 U. S. 586

containing a forum clause like the one here at issue benefit in the form of reduced fares
reflecting the savings that the cruise line enjoys by limiting the fora in which it may be
sued. Pp. 499 U. S. 590-594.

(b) The Court of Appeals' conclusion that the clause here at issue should not be
enforced because the Shutes are incapable of pursuing this litigation in Florida is not
justified by The Bremen Court's statement that

"the serious inconvenience of the contractual forum to one or both of the parties might
carry greater weight in determining the reasonableness of the forum clause."

Id. at 407 U. S. 17. That statement was made in the context of a hypothetical
"agreement between two Americans to resolve their essentially local disputes in a
remote alien forum." Ibid. Here, in contrast, Florida is not such a forum, nor -- given the
location of Mrs. Shute's accident -- is this dispute an essentially local one inherently
more suited to resolution in Washington than in Florida. In light of these distinctions, and
because the Shutes do not claim lack of notice of the forum clause, they have not
satisfied the "heavy burden of proof," ibid. required to set aside the clause on grounds
of inconvenience. Pp. 499 U. S. 594-595.

(c) Although forum selection clauses contained in form passage contracts are subject to
judicial scrutiny for fundamental fairness, there is no indication that petitioner selected
Florida to discourage cruise passengers from pursuing legitimate claims or obtained the
Shutes' accession to the forum clause by fraud or overreaching. P. 499 U. S. 595.

(d) By its plain language, the forum selection clause at issue does not violate 46 U.S.C.
App. § 183c, which, inter alia, prohibits a vessel owner from inserting in any contract a
provision depriving a claimant of a trial "by court of competent jurisdiction" for loss of life
or personal injury resulting from negligence. Pp. 499 U. S. 595-597.

897 F.2d 377 (CA9 1990), reversed.

BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and
WHITE, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, and SOUTER, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J.,
filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post,p. 499 U. S. 597.

Page 499 U. S. 587

2. The Bremen vs. Zapata Off-Shore Co.

407 U.S. (1972)
FACTS:

The Bremen (BREMEN), a German towing corporation, contracted to transport a self-elevating

drilling rig from Louisiana to Ravenna, Italy - in the Adriatic Sea, for Zapata Off-Shore Co. (ZAPATA),
a Houston-based American Corporation. Their towing agreement included a forum-selection clause (FSC)
providing for the “litigation of any dispute in the High Court Justice in London (English tribunal).” When
suddenly, a storm forced Bremen to make land in the nearest port of refuge which is in Tampa, Florida
and since the rig under tow was damaged, Zapata sued there, ignoring the forum clause. The Bremen
responded by invoking the forum clause and moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or on forum non
conveniens grounds. In the meantime, Bremen was faced with a dilemma in the pending action in the
United States court at Tampa. The six-month period for filing action to limit its liability to Zapata and
other potential claimants was about to expire, but the United States District Court in Tampa (DISTRICT
COURT) had not yet ruled on Bremen’s motion to dismiss or stay Zapata's action after the six-month
period for filing the limitation action had run, that the District Court denied Bremen’s motion to dismiss
or stay Zapata's initial action.

The US District Court in Tampa, relying on the Carbon Black Export, disregarded the FSC saying
that it is unenforceable and instead conducted a forum non conveniens analysis.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s use of a forum non conveniens analysis and
also held that the said forum-selection clause is unenforceable, reiterating the traditional view of many
American courts that 'agreements in advance of controversy whose object is to oust the jurisdiction of
the courts are contrary to public policy and will not be enforced.' It even ruled that unless the selected
state or forum named in the FSC would provide a more convenient forum than the state in which suit is
brought, the FSC will not be enforced.

ISSUE:
WON the forum-selection clause in the towing contract of The Bremen and Zapata is enforceable and binding
among the parties.

RULING:

YES. The forum-selection clause, which was a vital part of the towing contract, is enforceable
and binding on the parties unless the party seeking to avoid it can meet the heavy burden of showing that
its enforcement would be unreasonable, unfair, or unjust.

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. It stated that absent an FSC,
a forum non conveniens analysis would be appropriate, but that in times of expanding world trade and
commerce, judicial hostility towards FSCs is outdated. Continued judicial hostility towards FSCs, the
Court explained, would have the opposite effect on the much desired expansion of American business
and industry.
Thus, the Supreme Court asserted a new attitude towards choice clauses, by reasoning that Americans
simply could not continue to force their laws into the forefront of international commerce and trade
agreements by giving their courts control over every conflict in international trade and commerce in which
a U.S. party is involved. In addition to ending the hostility towards FSCs, the Court developed a new
analytical framework in the area of international contracts, abandoning the traditional forum non
conveniens analysis used in domestic contract cases.

Supreme Court asserted a new attitude towards choice clauses, by reasoning that Americans
simply could not continue to force their laws into the forefront of international commerce and trade
agreements by giving their courts control over every conflict in international trade and commerce in which
a U.S. party is involved. In addition to ending the hostility towards FSCs, the Court developed a new
analytical framework in the area of international contracts, abandoning the traditional forum non
conveniens analysis used in domestic contract cases.

Despite the Supreme Court’s support for FSCs, the Court in The Bremen held that several
circumstances would allow a court to disregard an FSC. These exceptions or defenses can be roughly
characterized as: (1) unreasonableness, (2) fraud, (3) undue influence or overweening bargaining
power,(4) the traditional exceptions for voiding any contract, and (5) public policy

An FSC is not binding if a party can prove that enforcement would be unreasonable or unjust.
Mere inconvenience or additional expense is not the test of unreasonableness since it may be assumed
that the parties received benefits under the contract in exchange for these potential problems. Therefore,
unless serious unexpected inconvenience is present, there is no basis for concluding that it would be
unfair, unjust, or unreasonable to hold a party to his bargain.

3. Burger King Corp. vs. Rudzewicz

471, U.S. 462 (1985) May 20, 1985
SYNOPSIS: On a writ of certiorari, appellant franchisor sought review of the judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which found that the State of Florida could not exercise
jurisdiction over appellee franchisee under Fla. Stat. ch. 48.193(1)(g) (Supp. 1984), in an action for breach
of contract.

FACTS: Appellant brought suit against appellee for breach of contract in the Florida courts. The court of
appeals reversed the holding of the lower court that Fla. Stat. ch. 48.193(1)(g) (Supp. 1984) granted the
Florida courts personal jurisdiction over the appellee.

HOLDING:
On review, the Supreme Court determined that a party that avails themselves of the protections and
benefits of the law of a forum state is subject to personal jurisdiction of that state.

ANALYSIS:
The court found that the appellees had entered into a contract and established a substantial and
continuing relationship with the appellant, a Florida resident. The court further found that the appellee
had fair notice that he might be subject to suit in Florida. The court further found that the exercise of
jurisdiction would not offend due process and reversed the holding of the court of appeals and remanded
for further proceedings.

RULES:
-Where a forum seeks to assert specific jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant who has not consented
to suit there, the fair warning requirement is satisfied if the defendant has purposefully directed his
activities at residents of the forum, and the litigation results from alleged injuries that arise out of or
relate to those activities.
-A State generally has a manifest interest in providing its residents with a convenient forum for redressing
injuries inflicted by out-of-state actors. Moreover, where individuals purposefully derive benefit from their
interstate activities it may well be unfair to allow them to escape having to account in other States for
consequences that arise proximately from such activities.
-The Due Process Clause may not readily be wielded as a territorial shield to avoid interstate obligations
that have been voluntarily assumed.

CONCLUSION: Judgment of the court of appeals finding the Florida courts could not exercise jurisdiction
over appellee was reversed because the exercise of jurisdiction by the Florida courts was not a violation of
due process.

4. Sweet Lines, Inc. vs. Teves, et al.

G.R. No. L-37750, 19 May 1978

5. HSBC vs. Jack Robert Sherman, et al.

G.R. No. 72494, 11 August 1989
Remedial Law; Jurisdiction; A state does not have jurisdiction in the absence of
some reasonable basis for exercising it whether the proceedings are in rem, quasi in
rem or in personam.—While it is true that “the transaction took place in Singaporean
setting” and that the Joint and Several Guarantee contains a choice-of-forum
clause, the very essence of due process dictates that the stipulation that “[t]his
guarantee and all rights, obligations and liabilities arising hereunder shall be
construed and determined under and may be enforced in accordance with the
laws of the Republic of Singapore. We hereby agree that the Courts in Singapore
shall have jurisdiction over all disputes arising under this guarantee” be liberally
construed. One basic principle underlies all rules of jurisdiction in International Law:
a State does not have jurisdiction in the absence of some reasonable basis for
exercising it, whether the proceedings are in rem, quasi in rem or in personam. To
be reasonable, the jurisdiction must be based on
some minimum contacts that will not offend traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice.
6. White vs. Tennant, 31W. Va. 798
8 SE 596 (W. Va. 1888).

7. Yamada vs. Yasuda

2-98-1073, Appellate Court of Illinois.

8. Re Union Carbide, 634 F. Supp. 842, SDNY, 1986.

B. CASES INVOLVING JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON

1. National Rental vs. Szukhent et al.,

375 U.S. 311 (1964), January 6, 1964

2. International Shoe Co. vs. Washington

326 U.S. 310 (1945), Dec. 3, 1945

3. Perkins vs. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co

342 U.S. 437, 72 S. Ct. 413 96, 1952

4. McGee vs. International Life Ins. Co.

355 U.S. 220 (1957), December 16, 1957

5. Philsec Investment et al vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 103493, June 19, 1997

6. World-wide Volkswagen Corp. vs. Woodson

444 U.S. 286 (1980)

7. Calder vs. Jones

465 U.S. 783 (1984)
Decided: March 20, 1984

8. Keeton vs. Hustler Magazine, Inc. et al

465 U.S. 770
Decided March 20, 1984

9. Asahi Metal Industry Co vs. Superior Court

480, U.S 102
Decided: February 24, 1987

10. Bensuan Restaurant Corporation vs. Richard B. King

Docket No. 96-9344
Decided: September 10, 1997

11. Compuserve Inc. vs. Richard Patterson

No. 95-3452
Decided: July 22, 1996

12. Rush vs. Sauchuk

 444 US 320 (1980)

C. FORUM NON-CONVENIENS

1. Piper Aircraft Co. vs. Reyno

454 U.S. 235 (1981)
Decided: December 8, 1981

2. Gulf Oil vs. Gilbert

330 US 501 (1947)

3. Lueck vs. Sundstrand

No. 99-15961, D.C. No. CV-97-2223, RGS
Decided: January 8, 2001

4. Monegro vs. Rosa, US 9th Circuit

9816846
Decided: May 3, 2000

5. Erie Railroad Co. vs. Tompkins

304 U.S. 64, 58 S. Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938)

6. Manila Hotel Corp and Manila Hotel Int’l Ltd. vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 120077, 13 October 2000

7. K.K. Shell Sekiyu Osaka Hatsubaisho and Fu Hing Oil Co., Ltd. v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 90306-07, 30 July 1990

8. Communications Materials and Design vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 102223, 22 August 1996

9. Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi, 62 NY 2d. 474 (1984)

10. MacShannon v. Rockware Glass Ltd [1987] A.C. 795 at 819

11. Sumitomo Bank Ltd v. Kartika Ratna Thahir & Ors and another matter, High
Court, Originating Summons No. 308 of 1976, Singapore

12 Kartika Ratna Thahir v. PT Pertambangan Minyak dan Gas Bumi Negara, Court
of Appeal, Civil Appeal No. 204 of 1992, 25 August 1994, Singapore

12. The “Rainbow Joy”, 2005 SGCA 36, Court of Appeal – Civil Appeal No 116 of
2004, Singapore

D. CASES INVOLVING JURISDICTION OVER THE RES

1. Gulf Oil Corporation vs. Gilbert

 330, U.S. 501 (1947)
Decided: March 10, 1947

2. Travelers Health Assn. vs. Virginia

339 U.S. 643
Decided: June 5, 1950

3. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp vs. Woodson

444 U.S. 286
Decided: January 21, 1980

4. Schmidt vs. Driscol, 249 Minn 376

82, NW 2d 365 (1957)

E. ACT OF STATE DOCTRINE/JURISDICTION

OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

1. French vs. Banco National de Cuba

295 NY 2d, 422-423 (1968)
(Saba Hino)

2. Hassan El-Fadl vs. Central Bank of Jordan, et. al.

Decided: February 6, 1996, No. 94-7212

3. Republic of the Philippines, et al v Pimentel et al

Supreme Court of the United States
No. 06-1204

4. Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi, 62 NY 2d. 474 (1984)

5. Credit Suisse v. U.S.D.C., 130 F.3d at 1342 (9th Cir. 1997)

6. Kirkpatrick Inc. v. Environmental Tectonics Corp., Int’l., 493 U.S. 400, 107 L.Ed.
2d 816 (1990)

7. In Re: Philippine National Bank v. United States District Court for the District of
Hawaii, No. 04-71843, D.C. No. MDL-00840-MLR

8. Pennhurst State School and Hosp. v. Halderman, 465, U.S. 89 (1984)

9. Lord Day & Lord v. Socialist Republic of Vietnam 134 F. Supp.2d 549 (S.D.N.Y.
2001)

10. Saratoga Country Chamber of Commerce, In. v. Pataki 798 N.E. 2d 1047
(N.Y. 2003)

11. Helen Liu v The Republic of China, No. 87-2976, United States Court of
Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 892 F.2d 1419 (1989)

F. CASES INVOLVING CHOICE OF LAW PROBLEMS

1. Tayag Renato vs. Benguet Consolidated, Inc.
G.R. No. 23145, November 29, 1968

2. United Airlines Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 124110, 20 April 2001

3. Cadalin vs. POEA Administrator

238 SCRA 721, 774-775 (1994)

4. Pakistan International Airlines vs. Ople

190 SCRA 1990, G.R. No. 61594, September 28, 1990

5. Huntinghon vs. Attrill

146 U.S. 657 (1892)

6. Testate Estate of Amos G. Bellis et al. vs. Edward Belli

L-23678, June 6, 1967

7. Sps. Zalamea vs. Court of Appeals and Transworld Airlines, Inc.

G.R. No. 104235, 18 November 1993

8. Garcia vs. Recio

G.R. No. 138322, 02 October 2001

9. Asiavest Merchant Bankers vs. Court of

G.R. No. 110263, 20 July 2001

10. Intercontinental Hotels vs. Golden

254 NYS 2d 527, NY 1964

G. CASES ON ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS

1. Loucks vs. Standard Oil Company of New York

224 NY 99, 111
Decided: July 12, 1918

2. Godard vs. Gray

L.R. 6 Q.B. 139 (1870)

3. Hilton vs. Guyot

159 U.S. 113, 16 S.Ct. 139, 40 L. Ed. 95 (1895)

4. Philippine Aluminum Wheels Inc. vs. FASGI Enterprises

G.R. No. 137378, 12 October 2000

5. PHILSEC vs. CA
G.R. 103493, June 19, 1997

6. Klaxon Co. vs. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.

313 U.S. 487, 61 S. Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941).

7. Borthwick vs. Castro Bartolome

 152 SCRA 229, 1987

8. Koster vs. Automark Industries, Inc.

640 F.2d 77, 81 n. 3 (7th Cir. 1981)

9. Querubin vs. Querubin

G.R. No. L-3693, 29 July 1950

10. Philippine International Shipping vs. CA

172 SCRA 810

11. Scherk vs. Alberto-Culver Co.

417 U.S. 506, 94 S. Ct. 2449
41 L. Ed.2d 270 (1974)

12. Asiavest Merchant Bankers vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 110263, 20 July 2001

13. Northwest Orient Airlines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

241 SCRA 192, 1995

14. Priscilla C. Mijares et al., v. Hon. Santiago Javier Ranada et al.,

G.R. No. 139325, April 12, 2005

15. Bachchan v. India Abroad Publications Inc., 585 N.Y.S. 2d 661

(N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1992)

16. Bridgeway Corp. V. Citibank, 201 F. 3d 134 (2d Cir. 2000)

17. Siedler v. Jacobson, 383 N.Y. S.2d 833 (NY Sup.Ct.App.1976)

H. CASES INVOLVING THE INTERNET

1. Panavision International vs. Dennis Toeppen

9th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 97-55467
17 April 1998 (Jurisdiction)

2. Transcraft Corp. vs. Doonan Trailer, Corp.

45 USPQ2d 1097 (N.D. III. 1997)

3. Scherr vs. Abrahams, No. 97C-5453

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8531

4. Maritz, Inc., 947 F. Supp 1328

5. CompuServe vs. Patterson, 89 F. 3d 1257

No. 95-3452
Decided: July 22, 1996

6. Yahoo!, Inc. vs. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L’Antisemitisme

 United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose
Division
Case No. C-00-21275 JF [Docket No. 170] (November 7, 2001)

8. Inset Systems, Inc. vs. Instruction Set, Inc.

No. CV-3:95 CV-01314 (AVC)
United States District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided: April 17, 1966

9. Bensuan Restaurant Corporation vs. Richard B. King

Docket No. 96-9344
Decided: September 10, 1997

10. America Online, Inc., v. Superior Court (Mendoza)

(2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1, 108 Ca.Rptr.2d 699

THESIS:

1. Establishing Judicially Manageable Standards In Order to Determine When

Public Policy is a Bar to the Enforcement of a Foreign Judgment.