What is the issue in Burger King v Rudzewicz?
Finding that Rudzewicz and MacShara had breached their franchise agreements with Burger King and had infringed Burger King’s trademarks and service marks, the court entered judgment against them, jointly and severally, for $228,875 in contract damages.
Why did Burger King sue in Florida rather than in Michigan?
Why did Burger King sue in Florida rather than in Michigan? Burger King sued Rudzewicz in Florida rather than in Michigan because they had personal jurisdiction over Rudzewicz.
What is the minimum contacts test?
The minimum contacts test is a balancing test that seeks to balance the totality of a defendant’s contacts with the forum state (or citizens thereof) with the fairness of compelling the defendant to travel to the forum state to defend against a lawsuit in that state.
What is Calder effect test?
The Calder Effects Test In order for a defendant to be subject to personal jurisdiction under Calder, a defendant must (1) commit an intentional act (2) that is expressly aimed at the forum state and (3) causes actual harm that the defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the forum state.
What is the Zippo test?
“Sliding scale” or “Zippo” test v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., a federal court held that “the likelihood that general jurisdiction can be constitutionally exercised is directly proportionate to the nature and quality of commercial activity that an entity conducts over the Internet.
Is minimum contacts still good law?
Lack of minimum contacts violates the nonresident defendant’s constitutional right to due process and “offends traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” (International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)).
How is purposeful availment determined?
Purposeful availment means that the defendant’s contacts with the forum state must not be random, fortuitous, attenuated, or the result of unilateral activity of a third person or another party.
What are the three prongs of the Zippo test?
Court uses a three-pronged test for determining whether the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant is appropriate: (1) the defendant must have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state, (2) the claim asserted against the defendant must arise out of those contacts, and (3) the …