No, the school district cannot be forced into a California court. For a court in one state to have power over someone from another state, that person must have some meaningful connection there. The school district's only connection was buying things online and mailing payments where the seller told them to, which isn't enough. The court said the school district didn't 'purposefully' try to do business in California. As for the tiny print on the invoice, the court said that's not a valid contract. You can't just add important new rules after a deal is already made unless the other person clearly agrees to them.

No, the California court did not have the right power over the Missouri school district. I don't think the school district had strong enough ties to California to let the court there make decisions about them in general. The specific issues with Office Supply also weren't strongly connected to California. The place Office Supply picked for payments and the words on their receipts alone aren't enough. The school district never clearly agreed California courts could decide their disagreements. So without the right power, the California court's decision doesn't count in Missouri.

Whether to register a foreign judgment and the propriety of the foreign judgment are legal conclusions that we review de novo.

In a dispute over contract terms, this provision allows a court simply to strike from the contract those terms on which the parties do not agree.• ExAmpLE 14.10 SMT Marketing orders goods over the phone from Brigg Sales, Inc., which 6.

When the parties agreed to the most important terms after the deadline, the court had to decide if there was an enforceable contract. 6. OfficeSupplyStore.

—in Medicine Shoppe Int' l, Inc. v. J-Pral Corp., the Missouri Court of Appeals held that a choice of law provision in a contract was not consent to personal jurisdiction because it was “not sufficiently definite nor so unequivocal on the question of submission to jurisdiction of Missouri courts, to constitute an effective waiver of the constitutional right of due process to be sued in …

Courts also consider the parties' prior dealings and course of performance when determining whether the alteration is material. 8.

As shown in the following case, however, what constitutes a material alteration is frequently a question of fact that only a court can decide. 6. OfficeSupplyStore.

There are a number of decisions that have concluded that forum-selection provisions materially alter a contract, such that they do not become incorporated under UCC section 2-207 (2)(b).

Although there have been cases in which Missouri courts have considered personal jurisdiction in the context of internet use, no case directly addressing personal jurisdiction resulting from the use of online auction sites such as eBay to sell items has been decided.[2] See

—foreign corporation contacted by Missouri school district to purchase items in response to website for company

… confirmation" becomes a part of the contract unless: they (i) "materially alter" the term (s) of the original offer,(ii) the original offer specifies that it could only be accepted without any changes, or (iii) the original offeror within a reasonable time after receiving the additional term (s) indicates to the original offeree that he will not accept the additional term (s). In Office Supply …

No, a California court does not have personal jurisdiction over the Missouri school district under these circumstances. For a court's exercise of jurisdiction to be valid, it must satisfy federal due process, which requires the defendant to have sufficient 'minimum contacts' with the forum state. The court found no basis for either general or specific jurisdiction. General jurisdiction was absent because the School District's purchases did not constitute 'continuous and systematic' contacts with California. Specific jurisdiction was also lacking because the School District did not 'purposefully avail' itself of the privilege of conducting activities in California; merely sending payments to a location unilaterally chosen by the seller is an ancillary factor insufficient to establish jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court rejected the argument that the School District consented to jurisdiction, holding that the fine-print forum selection clause on post-sale invoices was a material alteration under UCC § 2-207 and did not become part of the contract without the School District's express agreement.

No, the California court lacked both general and specific personal jurisdiction over the School District. I find the School District did not have continuous and systematic contacts with California to establish general jurisdiction, as its only contacts were the disputed purchases themselves. Specific jurisdiction is also lacking because the transactions did not arise out of or relate to the School District's contacts with California. The California payment address resulted from Office Supply's unilateral decision and cannot alone establish minimum contacts. The forum selection clause on Office Supply's invoices did not become part of the contract because the School District, as a non-merchant, did not expressly agree to it. Even between merchants, a forum selection clause is a material alteration requiring agreement. Therefore, without jurisdiction, the California default judgment is void and unenforceable in Missouri.

Office Supply Store.com v. Kansas City School Board

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot