1. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. vs.

Shute

Facts: After the respondents Shute, a Washington State couple, purchased passage on
a ship owned by petitioner, a Florida-based cruise line, petitioner sent them tickets
containing a clause designating courts in Florida as the agreed-upon fora for the
resolution of disputes. While on board the ship in international waters off the Mexican
coast, Mrs. Shute suffered injuries when she slipped on a deck mat. The Shutes filed
suit in a Washington Federal District Court, which granted summary judgment for
petitioner. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding, inter alia, that the forum-selection
clause should not be enforced under The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., because it
was not "freely bargained for," and because its enforcement would operate to deprive
the Shutes of their day in court in light of evidence indicating that they were physically
and financially incapable of pursuing the litigation in Florida.

Issue: Whether or not the forum-selection clause was properly not enforced.

Ruling: The Court of Appeals erred in refusing to enforce the forum-selection clause.
Including a reasonable forum clause in such a form contract well may be permissible for
several reasons. Because it is not unlikely that a mishap in a cruise could subject a
cruise line to litigation in several different fora, the line has a special interest in limiting
such fora. Moreover, a clause establishing ex ante the dispute resolution forum has the
salutary effect of dispelling confusion as to where suits may be brought and defended,
thereby sparing litigants time and expense and conserving judicial resources.

2. THE BREMEN vs. ZAPATA OFF-SHORE CO.

Facts: Respondent Zapata was a United States corporation which contracted with
Plaintiff Unterweser, a German corporation, to tow Zapata’s drilling rig, the Chaparral,
from Louisiana to Italy. During the voyage, a severe storm in the Gulf of Mexico caused
serious damage to the Chaparral. Zapata instructed Unterweser’s ship, the Bremen, to
tow the Chaparral to a port in Tampa, Florida. Zapata filed suit in federal district court in
Florida against Unterweser. Unterweser moved to dismiss the complaint based on the
contract’s forum-selection clause, which selected the London Court of Justice as the
exclusive forum.

Issue: Whether or not the forum selection clause in the towing contract of Bremen and
Zapata is enforceable and binding among the parties

Ruling: Yes. The forum-selection clause, which was a vital part of the towing contract,
is binding on the parties unless respondent can meet the heavy burden of showing that
its enforcement would be unreasonable, unfair, or unjust, vacated and remanded. The
parties to a freely negotiated private international commercial agreement contemplated
the claimed inconvenience and it is difficult to see why any such claim of inconvenience
should be heard to render the forum clause unenforceable.

3. Burger King Corp vs. Rudzewicz

Facts: Plaintiff BK, a Florida corporation, and Defendants, Michigan residents, had a
franchise agreement specifying that Defendants may be subject to suit in Florida.
Plaintiff sued Defendants in Florida federal court based for non-payment under the
franchise agreement. Defendants moved to dismiss on the grounds that Florida did not
have personal jurisdiction.

Issue: Whether or not the court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident
who purposefully directs his activities toward forum residents

Ruling: Yes. When the defendant has a business relationship and agreement with a
corporation located in the forum state and there is a forum-selection clause in the
agreement, the forum state may exercise personal jurisdiction if the long- arm statute
permits. If exercising jurisdiction would cause a grave hardship to the defendant, then
exercising jurisdiction would violate due process.

4. Sweet Lines vs Teves

Facts: Two passengers of an inter-island vessel sued petitioner company in the Court
of First Instance of Misamis Oriental for breach of contract of carriage. Petitioner moved
to dismiss the complaint on the ground of improper venue. The motion was premised on
the condition printed at the back of the tickets that actions arising from "the provisions of
this ticket shall be filed in the competent courts in the City of Cebu.

Issue: Whether or not a common carrier engaged in inter-island shipping may stipulate
thru a condition printed at the back of passage tickets fixing the venue of actions in the
City of Cebu.

Ruling: No. The Supreme Court declared the condition void and unenforceable as
contrary to public policy since the same will prejudice rights and interests of
innumerable passengers in different parts of the country who, under Condition No. 14,
will have to file suits against petitioner only in the City of Cebu.
 5. HSBC vs Sherman

Facts: In 1981, Eastern Book Supply was granted by the Singapore branch of Petitioner HSBC
an overdraft facility. As a security, Respondents Jack Sherman, Reloj, and a Lowe, all of whom
were directors of Eastern at such time, executed a Joint and Several Guarantee in favor of
HSBC which provides that: “the Courts of Singapore shall have jurisdiction over all disputes
arising under this guarantee.” When Eastern failed to pay its obligation, HSBC demanded
payment from Respondents, and filed a complaint for collection. Respondents filed a motion to
dismiss on the grounds that (1) the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
complaint, and (2) the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendants.

Issue: Whether or not Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the suit.

Ruling: Yes. While it is true that the transaction took place in Singaporean setting and that the
Joint and Several Guarantee contains a choice-of-forum clause, the very essence of due
process dictates that the stipulation be liberally construed.

In this case, Respondents are Philippine who would rather face a complaint against them before
a foreign court and in the process incur considerable expenses, not to mention inconvenience,
than to have a Philippine court try and resolve the case. Their stance is hardly comprehensible,
unless their ultimate intent is to evade, or at least delay, the payment of a just obligation.

6. White vs Tennant

Facts: Michael White moved his home from West Virginia to Pennsylvania, but the same day he
crossed back to West Virginia to take care of his wife who was sick with typhoid. He then
caught the disease and died in West Virginia. His wife recovered and his estate was distributed
under the laws of West Virginia. Under the law of West Virginia, Michael’s wife would receive all
her husband’s personal property by intestate succession. Under Pennsylvania law, she would
receive only half, and his immediate family would get the other half. White (Plaintiff), the
brothers and sisters of Michael, sought to set aside the West Virginia distribution of his estate,
claiming he was domiciled in Pennsylvania

Issue: Whether or not the distribution of his estate under the laws of West Virginia was proper.
Ruling: No. The succession and distribution of a decedent’s personal estate is controlled by the
law of the state where the decedent was domiciled at the time of death. The facts reveal that
Michael left his West Virginia residence with no plans to return and with the intent and purpose
of making his permanent home in Pennsylvania. Therefore, at the moment he and his wife
arrived at their new home, their domicile became Pennsylvania. Accordingly, the decree must
be reversed and remanded.

7. Yamada vs Yasuda

Facts: An air-operated diaphragm pump, manufactured by Yamada and purchased by CWC

Fluids, failed. The pump's destroyed parts of the regeneration system and the acid also spilled
onto the main plant floor and into the drain to the city sewer system. CWC filed a complaint in
the circuit court of Cook County against plaintiffs, among others, alleging strict product liability,
breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and negligence. Plaintiffs tendered their
defense to Yasuda Fire pursuant to a general liability claims-made policy. Plaintiffs filed a
complaint for declaratory judgment and other relief against defendants, and defendants filed a
motion to dismiss, relying primarily on the forum-selection clause.

Issue: Whether or not the forum selection clause is enforceable.

Ruling: Yes. A forum-selection clause in a contract is prima facie valid and should be enforced
unless the opposing party shows that enforcement would contravene the strong public policy of
the state in which the case is brought, or that the chosen forum would be so seriously
inconvenient for trial that the opposing party would be deprived of his or her day in court. In the
present case, there is no evidence in the record that the policy was not equally bargained for.

8. In Re: Union Carbide Gas Plant Disaster

Facts: On the night of 23 December 1984, a gas leak occurred at the pesticide plant of Union
Carbide India Limited (UCIL) in Bhopal, India resulting in the deaths of more than 2,000 people
and injuries to more than 200,000 others. Thereafter, the India passed a law giving the Indian
government the exclusive right to represent the victims of the disaster. As thus, the Indian
government filed a complaint before a New York district court. The Union Carbide Corporation
(UCC) filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens and lack of personality.
The district court granted the motion on three conditions, namely, that UCC: (1) consent to the
jurisdiction of Indian courts and waive defenses based on the Statute of Limitations; (2) agree to
the satisfy the judgement of the Indian court, provided it complied with the requirements of due
process; and (3) be subject to discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of the US.
Consequently, the Indian government filed sued the UCIL and the UCC before the a district
court in India. The UCC appealed the conditions.

Defendants argue that while Indian courts may provide an adequate alternative forum, they
adhere to standards of due process much lower than that followed in the US. Hence, US courts
must supervise the proceedings before Indian courts.

Issue: Whether or not the dismissal on the ground of forum non conveniens is proper.

Ruling: Yes. The Indian courts are adequate alternative fora.

Almost all of the estimated 200,000 plaintiffs are citizens and residents of India who have
revoked their representation by an American counsel in favor of the Indian government, which
now prefers Indian courts. Further, the UCC has already consented to the assumption of
jurisdiction by the Indian courts. All the witnesses and evidence are likewise in India.

As to the conditions, the first is valid in order to secure the viability of the Indian courts as
alternate fora. The second is problematic as it gives the impression that foreign judgments the
UCC's consent is necessary in order for the judgement of the Indian courts to be enforceable in
New York. The laws of New York, in fact, recognizes that a judgment rendered by a foreign
court may be enforced in that State except if such judgment was rendered in violation of due
process or without jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. The request of UCC of
supervision by US courts of Indian courts is untenable. The power of US courts cannot extend
beyond their territorial jurisdiction. Moreover, once US courts dismiss a case on the ground of
forum non conveniens, they lose any further jurisdiction over the case, except in case of an
action for enforcement later on. Denial of due process may, however, constitute a defense
against the enforcement of the Indian judgment. The third condition is likewise invalid. Basic
justice dictates that both parties must be given equal access to evidence in each other's
possession. Hence, both parties maybe subjected to the modes of discovery under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure on equal terms subject to approval by Indian courts