 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wharton v. Earl Brown & Sons12/11/2001
own purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within this state and invoking the benefits and protections of Washington laws. CTVC of Hawaii Co. v. Shinawatra, 82 Wn. App. 699, 710, 919 P.2d 1243 (1996) (citing Walker v. Bonney-Watson Co., 64 Wn. App. 27, 34, 823 P.2d 518 (1992)). 'The sufficiency of the contacts is determined by the quality and nature of the defendant's activities, not the number of acts or mechanical standards.' CTVC, 82 Wn. App. at 710.
To determine whether a nonresident defendant purposefully established minimum contacts by entering into a contract with a resident of the forum state, the court must examine the entire transaction, including prior negotiations, contemplated future consequences, the terms of the contract, and the parties' actual course of dealing. Precision Lab. Plastics, Inc. v. Micro Test, Inc., 96 Wn. App. 721, 727, 981 P.2d 454 (1999) (citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 479, 105 S. Ct. 2174, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528 (1985)). The mere execution of a contract with a state resident alone is not sufficient to fulfill the purposeful availment requirement. CTVC, 82 Wn. App. at 711.
Significantly, '{i}n contract disputes, purposeful availment often turns on which party solicited the agreement and where.' Byron Nelson Co. v. Orchard Mgmt. Corp., 95 Wn. App. 462, 465-66, 975 P.2d 555, review denied, 138 Wn.2d 1024 (1999). The focus is on the acts of the defendant. CTVC, 82 Wn. App. at 715. However, it is irrelevant which party initiated the transaction if a business relationship results. Precision Lab., 96 Wn. App. at 726.
Several Washington cases have considered the purposeful availment requirement. In Washington Equipment, the court concluded that Concrete Placing did not purposefully avail itself of the benefits and protections of Washington law even though several employees visited Washington during a transaction, telephone calls were exchanged, and equipment was delivered 'F.O.B.' Spokane. Washington Equip., 85 Wn. App. at 247. Significantly, the sale had been solicited in Idaho and the contract was entered into in Idaho. Id.
Similarly, in CTVC, the court concluded that the purposeful availment requirement was not met when the only contact was Dr. Shinawatra's presence in Washington to negotiate part of the contract. CTVC, 82 Wn. App. at 714- 16.
In MBM Fisheries, Inc. v. Bollinger Machine Shop & Shipyard, Inc., 60 Wn. App. 414, 804 P.2d 627 (1991), the court determined that Bollinger had not engaged in purposeful activity within Washington because MBM sought out Bollinger in Louisiana and the contract was negotiated there, all the work was performed in Louisiana, the vessel was delivered in Louisiana, and the contract did not contemplate any continuing obligation or relationship tying Bollinger to Washington. Id. at 424.
In Byron Nelson, the court found specific jurisdiction allowing a Washington equipment broker to bring suit against a Virginia equipment seller for breach of contract and breach of warranty. The court held that the Virginia seller had met the purposeful availment requirement by (1) soliciting Byron's brokerage services, (2) arranging an oral extension of the original brokerage agreement, and (3) delivering the equipment to Washington. Bryon Nelson, 95 Wn. App. at 466-67. However, the court also stated that: 'The act of soliciting and engaging a Washington broker is enough to establish minimum contacts for jurisdiction purposes.' Id. at 467.
Brown's contacts with Washington are insufficient to meet the purposeful availment requirement in the context of this claim. Mr. Wharton has establish
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|