Search for: "The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co" Results 1 - 20 of 30
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Oct 2011, 10:29 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 10 (1972), the Supreme Court held that a forum-selection clause is “prima facie valid and should be enforced unless enforcement is shown by the resisting party to be ‘unreasonable’ under the circumstances.” 8 Moreover, Ninth Circuit law requires that, in considering the dismissal of a case, forum selection clauses should be enforced unless there is a strong public policy against doing so. [read post]
20 Apr 2015, 10:21 am by Paul E. Freehling
Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1) criticized such thinking in part because forum selection clauses often provide consistency and certainty. [read post]
30 Jun 2009, 3:32 pm
Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (1972), held that the inconvenience of litigating in a foreign forum doesn't warrant setting aside a selection clause "where it can be said with reasonable assurance" that at the time the contract was made the parties contemplated the claimed inconvenience. [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 3:00 am by Ted Folkman
Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (1972).The court also rejected the notion that Diamond Bermuda was engaged in an impermissible collateral attack on the Netherlands judgment, on the grounds that while in general a party cannot collaterally attack the merits of a foreign judgment, it can do so on one of the limited grounds in the UFCMJRA.Judge Frost dissented and raised what I think is a strong point. [read post]
10 Jul 2011, 4:23 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 10 (1972), for the proposition that forum selection clauses “are prima facie valid and should be enforced unless enforcement is shown by the resisting party to be ‘unreasonable’ under the circum- stances.” [read post]