3. Id. at 1113 (quoting Nute v.
Hamilton Mut. Ins. Co., 72
Mass. ( 6 Gray) 174, 185
(1856)).
4. See id.
5. San Francisco Sec. Corp. v.
Phoenix Motor Co., 220 P. 229,
231 (Ariz. 1923) (quoting 6
RULING CASE LAW 752 (1915)).
6. See M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 10
(1972).
7. See, e.g., High Life Sales Co. v.
Brown-Forman Corp., 823
S. W.2d 493, 496 (Mo. 1992).
8. 407 U.S. 1 (1972).
9. Id. at 12.
10. See id. at 10.
11. See id. at 15.
12. See Prof’l Ins. Corp. v.
Sutherland, 700 So. 2d 347,
350 (Ala. 1997).
13. See Morgan Bank (Delaware) v.
Wilson, 794 P.2d 959, 961
(Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
14. 597 P.2d 541 (Ariz. 1979).
15. 225 P. 1112.
16. Mousseux, 597 P.2d at 543.
17. S & D Coffee Inc. v. GEI
Autowrappers, 995 F. Supp.
607, 609 (M.D.N.C. 1997)
(emphasis added).
18. See Koch v. Am. Online, Inc.,
139 F. Supp. 2d 690, 693 (D.
Md. 2000).
19. Utah Pizza Serv. v. Heigel, 784
F. Supp. 835, 837-38 (D. Utah
1992).
20. 665 P.2d 106 (Ariz. Ct. App.
1983).
21. Id. at 106-07.
22. See id. at 107.
23. See id. (distinguishing forum
selection clause at issue from
mandatory clause in Mousseux,
which provided “only the tribunal of the Chamber of
Commerce of Auxierre will be
apt to judge any differences
which may arise between both
parties”) (quoting Mousseux,
597 P.2d 541).
24. See Bennett v. Appaloosa Horse
Club, 35 P.3d 426, 429 n. 1
(Ariz. Ct. App. 2001) (citing
Mousseux, 597 P.2d at 543).
25. See Mousseux, 597 P.2d at 543.
26. 35 P.3d 426 (Ariz. Ct. App.
2001).
27. See id. at 428-29 ¶ 8.
28. See Burkons v. Ticor Title Ins.
Co., 798 P.2d 1308, 1320 (Ariz.
Ct. App. 1989), vacated on other
grounds, 813 P.2d 710 (Ariz.
1991); Huff v. Bekins Moving &
Storage Co., 702 P.2d 1341,
1343 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
Improvement & Power Dist. v.
Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 694
P.2d 198, 215 (Ariz. 1984).
41. See Bennett, 35 P.3d at 429 n. 1.
42. See A. Uberti & C. v. Leonardo,
892 P.2d 1354, 1364 (Ariz.
1995) (“[A]s technology has
drawn the world markets closer,
‘progress in communications
and transportation has made
defense of a suit in a foreign tribunal less burdensome.’”)
(quoting Hanson v. Denckla,
357 U.S. 235, 251 (1958));
Powder Horn Nursing, Inc. v.
Soil & Plant Lab., Inc., 514 P.2d
270, 274 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973)
(“[M]odern transportation and
communication have made it
much less burdensome for a
party sued to defend himself in a
State where he engages in economic activity.”) (quoting
McGee v. Int’l Life Ins. Co., 355
U.S. 220, 223 (1957)).
43. See Hartash Constr., Inc. v.
Drury Inns, Inc., No. Civ. A 00-
1555, 2000 WL 1140498, at 2
(E.D. La. Aug. 11, 2000) (“The
inconvenience of trying a case in
one state versus another … is
insufficient to invalidate a forum
selection clause.”), aff’d, 252
F.3d 436 (5th Cir. 2001).
44. 67 F.3d 7 (2d Cir. 1995).
45. Id. at 10 (internal bracketing
omitted) (quoting Calavo
Growers of Cal. v. Belguim, 632
F.2d 963, 969 (2d Cir. 1980)
(Newman, J., concurring)).
46. See Green v. William Mason &
Co., 996 F. Supp. 394, 396
(D.N.J. 1998) (observing that
“air travel brings the two national coasts within hours of each
other”); State v. Fuller, 694 P.2d
1185, 1188 (Ariz. 1985)
(“Guaymas [Mexico] is no more
than several hours from Phoenix
by air travel.”).
47. Bennett, 35 P.3d at 431 ¶ 20
(citing Carnival Cruise Lines v.
Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 594-95
(1991), and Bremen, 407 U.S.
at 17).
48. Cf. D’Antuono v. CCH
Computax Sys., Inc., 570 F.
Supp. 708, 713 (D.R.I. 1983)
(“[The plaintiff] will have to
travel [from Rhode Island] to
the west coast for trial in the
chosen forum; but such a jour-
ney was apparently within the
contemplation of the parties
when the bargain was struck.”).
See generally Lyon Fin. Servs.,
257 S. W.3d at 234 (“Absent
proof of special and unusual
circumstances, … trial in
another state is not so gravely
difficult and inconvenient as
to avoid enforcement of an
otherwise valid forum-selec-
tion clause.”) (internal quota-
tion marks and citation omit-
ted).
