The Long Arm Statute - Essay Example

Case Analysis The Long Arm Statute is a law allowing the to exert jurisdiction upon a defendant who is an out-of-state, as long as the prospective defendant has enough minimum contacts with the state of forum. Jurisdiction over a defendant who is out-of-state is often known as extraterritorial personal jurisdiction or personam jurisdiction which permits a court to exert jurisdiction upon an individual. It is always an important requirement for a given court to listen to the merits of claims alleged. Going by the history, a given state had the capability of exercising its jurisdiction within its territorial limits. For that reason, a defendant who is nonresident was brought to court when the delivery of writ or summons (service of process) was settled while the defendant in question was within the state boundaries (Parness 486). In Adamson’s case, he lives in Idaho with his children who happened to have made an order of Makers Mark from Kentucky. Can Adamson serve the company with a “long arm service of process” and bring the case back to Idaho for court action? Adamson can serve the company with the long arm service of process so that the case can be taken back to Idaho. However, Kentucky would be ideal for handling the cases despite the fact that Adamson’s family hailed from Idaho, and had minimal contact with the forum state. In this case, Makers Mark was searched through the Internet and for that reason; there was ‘certain minimum contacts’ during the process. For a judicial process to begin for a nonresident, three criteria need to be analyzed. They include: the defendant has availed himself purposefully of the advantages of a given state in order to reasonably forecast being pressured into the other state’s court. Secondly, the forum state will have enough interest in the case, and lastly, pressuring the defendant into a given court is considered not to offend the “notions of fair play and substantial justice.” (Adams) Which state would be the appropriate forum to review the case? Adamson can persuade Idaho state court of the advantages of having the case heard within his residential state. Essentially, the case should be heard in Kentucky because the property was purchased from that state. However, Idaho is ideal for the hearing of the case as the defendants hail from the state and would be better placed to access the courts as opposed to going all the way to Kentucky. The best state for forum and review of the case would be Kentucky though with minimum contact, is the place to follow up the case as the transaction was done within the state. The fact that there was certain minimum contact was enough a reason to adopt the in Kentucky (Adams). Which state law from the two states should the Judge use? The judge will use the Kentucky state law which states that: A court may exert personal jurisdiction upon a person acting directly or through an agent as to claims emanating from the person’s conducting any business in this Commonwealth. The “person” in this case refers to an individual, administrator, his executor, any personal representative, partnership, association, corporation, or any other commercial or legal entity, who happens to be a non resident of the state (Parness 487). In this case Adamson is not the person that committed the act, but his children who acted as his representatives. They made the transaction on his behalf and are liable for legal action within Kentucky state statutes and laws. Explain the written law and your reasons. Analyze the written law in relation to this case, explain current case law and reach a conclusion as a judge Because the person (Adamson’s representatives) made an Internet search, this means that there was, in deed, certain minimum contact with the state. Secondly, the person also made calls and enquires and would later manage to convince the company through calls and fax that they were of the right age to make the transaction. The defendant has breached the Kentucky statute by purchasing Makers Mark, and as such found in breach of this state’s sovereign laws (McCartt, 173). Kentucky as a state with its independent legislations deems it out of order that a purchase of the Markers Maker was made albeit in the pretext of minors who presented themselves as adults. The current case law asserts that nonresidents can undergo a judicial process in another state provided there are clear breaches of the legal procedures of the state, and that the defendant has received a service of process (Voas, Tippetts and Fell 579). Explain if there is any basis for disavowing the contract, and returning the alcoholic beverage The contract had been signed by Adamson’s representative, for that reason, it is irrevocable. However, upon realizing that the representatives in question were actually teenagers whose ages ranged between 12 and 15 years, the contract can be revoked on the premise that the contract was agreed with underage persons (McCartt 177). Such basis would be handy in disavowing the contract and taking back the alcoholic beverage to the company. According to the legal standing, underage persons are not permitted to take alcohol let alone purchasing. The law states that alcohol is prohibited for teenagers below 21 years old (McCartt 175). However, there is a challenge because the United States loses 4,700 underage drunkards between the age of 12 and 20 years. In a nut-shell, Markers Make was not to be accessed whatsoever by the Adamsons. Works Cited Adams, Charles C. A Call for a Federal Long Arm Statute to Confer Lawful Authority Over Nonresidents on the State Courts. University of Tulsa Legal Studies, December 17, 2012. Web. February 20, 2013. McCartt, Anne T, Laurie Hellinga, and Bevan Kirley. “The Effects of Minimum Legal Drinking Age 21 Laws on Alcohol-related Driving in the United States.” J Safety Res 41.2 (2010): 173-81. Parness, Jeffrey. “Web Auction Sales and Long-Arm Jurisdiction.” Illinois Bar Journal 98.1 (2010): 486. Voas, Robert B, Scott Tippetts, and James C. Fell. “Assessing the Effectiveness of Minimum Legal Drinking Age and Zero Tolerance Laws in the United States.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 35.4 (2003): 579-588. Read More