[fatdog789]

As I posted elsewhere, that's just wrong.

FORUM SELECTION CLAUSES ARE NOT BINDING ABSENT A SIGNED WRITTEN CONTRACT. EVEN WITH A CONTRACT, ALMOST NO COURT IN THE US WILL HONOR A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE BETWEEN A CONSUMER AND A CORPORATION.

Think about it: if forum selection clauses did have legal effect (between consumers and corporations), you wouldn't be able to sue most companies unless you were willing to go to Delaware (where roughly 90% of naitonal US corps are headquartered). The reason we have lawsuits everywhere is precisely b/c you can file anywhere, even despite a forum selection clause.

ONLY BUSINESSES NEED TO WORRY ABOUT FORUM SELECTION CLAUSES.

Choice of law clauses are different.

[socialtistics]

That statement is wrong. Forum selection clauses are binding absent a signed written contract. For example, one of the more famous cases setting precedent for forum selection clauses involved Carnival Cruise Lines. In that case a passenger injured on a cruise attempted to sue Carnival in the passenger's local jurisdiction. Carnival countered that because there was a forum-selection clause in the contract printed on the back of the passenger's ticket that the passenger should be forced to sue Carnival in Florida. The case went all the way to the US Supreme Court which ruled that the forum-selection clause on Carnival's ticket was fair and reasonable and enforceable against the passenger. Check out Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v Shute 499 US 595, 111 S.Ct122 (1991) for details on this exact case.

Now I am by no means saying that forum-selection clauses are an end all to potential contract lawsuits (key here being contract disputes and not just any lawsuit between a plaintiff and defendent corporation). There are ways to fight the forum-selection part, but you must be prepared to fight it and pay the legal expenses involved. Sometimes it is a matter of weighing the cost versus the outcome sadly and that is why corporations end up avoiding the lawsuits in contract disputes.

[fatdog789]

Check the case again: this case is only mandatory precedent for ADMIRALTY cases. While strongly persuasive precedent, b/c it is SCOTUS, it has not been followed in the state courts.

[pg]

Please don't use all uppercase.