Posted:

Contract Law Assessment number 2, BUS-FP 3021

Contract Law
Assessment number 2,
BUS-FP 3021

Introduction
A contract is a legally binding exchange of promises or an agreement between parties that the law enforcement. It does not prescribe the right and obligations of the parties. A contract does not need to be written to be enforceable. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate a contract lawbetween parties. A summarization of the importance, context, purpose, and relevance of law in a business environment and a presentation of the facts of a case to illustrate the context, purpose, and relevance will be provided. There will be an evaluation of the role of contracts in commercial transactions, examples provided and cites of dissenting arguments and reasons for dissent.
This contract law case study is in regards to Carnival Cruise Line, Inc. V. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 111 S. Ct. 1522, 113 L. Ed. 2d 622 (1991)

Background
Appelles Eulal and Russel Shute(plaintiffs) purchased tickets through a travel agent in Washington state for a cruised owned by Appellant Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. (Carnival) (defendant). The cruise was intended for seven days. On the left – hand lower corner of each ticketfacesside contained the terms and conditions ofthe passenger’scontract ticket,which also included an agreement that all matters disputed or litigated subjected to the travel agreement, would be before a Florida court. It also states on “by paying for the ticket the person has agreed to the contract. The defendant boarded the ship in California, which then sailed to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico before returning to Los Angeles. The defendant Eulala Shute got injured from slipping on a deck mat, while the ship was ininternational waters. Eulal Shute(defendant) filed suit in the Federal District Court in Washington.

Disagreement
When Appeles filed suit against Appellant in the Federal court in Washington, Appellants challenged the suit on the grounds that the forum selection clause forbids litigation in any venue except Florida. They filed a suit against them in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington, claiming that her injuries had been caused by the negligence of Carnival Cruise lines. The Cruise line argued that they did not meet the minimum contacts test with Washington therefore, the court lacked personal jurisdiction District court granted their motion for summary judgment Court of appeals reversed and reasoned that if not for the petitioner’s solicitation of business in Washington the Shutes would not have taken the cruise and there would be no injury.
Court Ruling
The question at hand is whether the court should enforce a forum-selection clause or not enforce it. Enforcing the clause would make individuals submit to jurisdiction in a specific state. In reaching the Supreme Court’s decision, the court stated there is not enough evidence the plaintiff set Florida as the only forum for passengers to pursue their claims. The forum-clause contained in the passenger contracts are subject to judicial review and scrutiny, but when they are lacking in fairness they will not be enforced. The Shutes were granted permission to resolve their lawsuit outside of a Florida Court.

Dissent
Justice Stevens and Justice MarshallCourt implies that a purchaser of a Carnival Cruise lines passenger ticket is fully and fairly notified about the existence of the forum selection clause with the fine print on the back of the ticket. Even if this was true Stevens still disagrees. Most reasonable people are not likely to become aware of the forum selection clause Picture of theticket. Passengers wouldn’t have the opportunity to read the notice on the back of the ticket until after they have already purchased the ticket. The most individual would just accept this risk of the suit having to be filed in Florida rather that canceling without getting a refund.
I agree with the ruling. I believe that the parties were aware to a certain degree of what the package offer. When individuals find deals or vacation packages that are cheap they jump on it without reading the fine lines. Just like shopping, we are always looking for deals and not reading the policy to see if the item is refundable. This is a mistake that we all make as consumers. Companies always have the fine lines printed at the bottom with thesmall font to target individuals who are not aware.
Conclusion
The purpose of this paper was to take a good look at contract law. A summarization of the importance, context, purpose, and relevance of law in a business environment and a presentation of the facts of a case to illustrate the context, purpose, and relevance were provided.

References
FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved July 19, 2017, from

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/499/585.html

Carnival Cruise Line, Inc. v. Shute. (n.d.). Retrieved July 19, 2017, from

https://essays.homeworkacetutors.com/write-my-essay/casebriefs.com/blog/law/civil-procedure/civil-procedure-keyed-to-subrin/the-choice-of-an-appropriate-court-personal-jurisdiction-notice-and-venue/carnival-cruise-lines-inc-v-shute-3/

Order | Check Discount