here - FindLaw
here - FindLaw
here - FindLaw
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
legitimate interest in having law of single state apply to United States operations, and<br />
Washington was closest state to franchisor‘s headquarters in Vancouver, British<br />
Columbia].<br />
Likewise, Neiman Marcus conducts business throughout the United States and<br />
engages in interstate commerce, which is a reasonable basis for the parties to provide that<br />
the Agreement shall be governed by the FAA. (See Pedcor Management v. Nations<br />
Personnel of Texas (5th Cir. 2003) 343 F.3d 355, 361–362; J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. v.<br />
Hartman (Tex.Ct.App. 2010) 307 S.W.3d 804, 808; Harrison v. Eberhardt (2007)<br />
287 Ga.App. 561, 563 [651 S.E.2d 826]; In re Alamo Lumber Co. (Tex.Ct.App. 2000)<br />
23 S.W.3d 577, 578–579; see also Volt Info. Sciences v. Leland Stanford Jr. U. (1989)<br />
489 U.S. 468, 476–477 [109 S.Ct. 1248].)<br />
As explained in the Restatement Second of Conflict of Laws: ―The forum will not<br />
apply the chosen law to determine issues the parties could not have determined by<br />
explicit agreement directed to the particular issue if the parties had no reasonable basis<br />
for choosing this law. The forum will not, for example, apply a foreign law which has<br />
been chosen by the parties in the spirit of adventure or to provide mental exercise for the<br />
judge. Situations of this sort do not arise in practice. Contracts are entered into for<br />
serious purposes and rarely, if ever, will the parties choose a law without good reason for<br />
doing so.<br />
―When the state of the chosen law has some substantial relationship to the parties<br />
or the contract, the parties will be held to have had a reasonable basis for their choice.<br />
This will be the case, for example, when this state is that w<strong>here</strong> performance by one of<br />
the parties is to take place or w<strong>here</strong> one of the parties is domiciled or has his principal<br />
place of business.‖ (Rest.2d Conf. of Laws, supra, § 187, com. f, pp. 566–567, italics<br />
added; see Hertz Corp. v. Friend (2010) 559 U.S. ___ [130 S.Ct. 1181, 1192]<br />
[corporation‘s headquarters, from which it controls operations, is principal place of<br />
business].)<br />
20