Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 (1991) p94.

jurisdiction: validity of forum selection clauses

• Shutes, residents of Washington State, purchased passage on a Carnival Cruise Lines ship through their local travel agent.
• They paid for the tickets through the agent.
• The tickets contained notice in small print that "all disputes and matters whatsoever… shall be litigated in Florida."
• While cruising in international waters off Mexico, Mrs. Shutes was injured when she slipped on a deck mat during a guided tour of the ship's galley.
• The Shutes sued Carnival for injuries in distirct court in Washington state.

The district court dismissed their action on the ground that Carnival had insufficient contacts with Washington. The court of Appeals reversed refusing to enforce the forum selection clause because it was not freely bargained for, and because the Shutes would be financially unable to pursuing the litigation in Florida. The Supreme Court reversed.

Although there was a forum selection clause which state Florida would be the forum for any suits, were there still reasons why Carnival could be held to Washington jurisdiction?

Contract forms are subject to scrutiny for "fundamental fairness," and must be examined for fraud or overreaching.

The forum selection clause is valid and thus there is no jurisdiction in Washington.

Non-negotiated clauses in a form contract are enforceable under some circumstance. The cruise line had a special interest in limiting the forum. This eliminates confusion, saves time and money. The savings could be passed on to customers. The Shutes had sufficient notice of the clause, and even great inconvenience to them is not a sufficient argument.