Search for: "The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co" Results 1 - 20 of 31
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]