*1 ASSOCIATES, LEASING, AND v. AL SPAIN INC. INC., Albert L. SPAIN 640 S.W.2d Court of Supreme delivered October Opinion *2 Firm, P.A., Penick, III, Rose Law H. for by: James appellant.
No brief for appellees. Adkisson, Richard B. Chief The sole issue Justice. presented this is whether appeal the Pulaski County Circuit Court has personal jurisdiction over Al appellee, Associates, and Spain Inc. under the Arkansas arm long statute, Ark. Stat. Ann. 1979), as limited (Repl. 27-2502 § the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
Appellee, a Florida corporation, defaulted on a non- cancelable lease agreement between it and appellant, Inc., corporation, appellant filed suit in Arkansas to recover the balance due. The trial court granted appellee’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. On we appeal, reverse.
The lease agreement between concerned a Minolta copier machine which was originally owned Inc., by Copytronics, located in corporation Florida. Appellant purchased the machine from Copy- tronics and then leased it to appellee. Negotiations for the lease of the machine took place in Florida where appellee signed an original lease form from SD and filled out a customer credit check sheet. Copytronics mailed these documents with along an invoice with the price machine to appellant. documents, Upon of these receipt reviewed the lease and ran a credit check on then Appellant approved and accepted lease and paid for Copytronics the machine. de- Copytronics livered the machine to called appel- lee to make certain the machine had been installed. Appel- also lant mailed lease, appellee a copy of the executed and an for monthly payments, explanatory book coupon letter. payments pursuant several then appellant by but notified financial because of out of business going
company No more were made difficulties.
subsequently picked up
copier
appellant.
1979) provides
Stat.
(Repl.
to a
over
person
exercise
personal jurisdiction
“transacting any
person’s
cause
action
from that
arising
’’
business in this State.
have held that
purpose
We
statute is to
our state’s
*3
expand
nonresidents,
within the limits
due
permitted
process
Dunavant,
v.
of
Nix
the United States Constitution.
641,
460
(1970).
S.W.2d
249
762
310
v.
U.S.
Washington,
International Shoe Co.
personal
set out
the due
process requirements
to
rendered
In order
valid
be
jurisdiction:
judgment
for a
within the forum
against nonresident defendant not served
state,
minimum contacts”
due
that “certain
process requires
exist
state “such that the
between
nonresident
‘traditional notions
maintenance of the suit does not offend
”
of fair
A
contract
single
and substantial
play
justice.’
the basis for the exercise of
provide
if there is
connection
nonresident defendant
a substantial
See McGee v.
the contract and the forum state.
Co.,
International
Ins.
directly of it was of business. One informing appellant going out had memos stated that to telephoned appellant of its financial but no one had inform difficulties its call. returned
Furthermore, 85-1-105 that Ark. Stat. we note a reasonable bears a transaction states that when 1961) (Add. state, “the parties to and also another to this state relation other state or of such the law either agree Here, the lease and duties.” their govern rights shall state... “shall the lease be provided specifically of laws the State under the and construed by ’’ governed does so not that the agreed While the fact parties itself, in and an Arkansas court personal give to goes state which another contact with this does it provide of Interna- satisfy requirement the “minimum Shoe, supra. tional with the State to substantial contacts addition these Arkansas, juris- himself to appellee subjected in the expressly agreeing
diction of the Arkansas courts by lease that: will be in the he consent
... event of default... State of courts of the the terms of this lease. enforce to be fair and Such a clause is if is determined enforceable Law, Leflar, 115 (1968); reasonable. See American Conflicts Co., Reeves v. Chem Or. 495 P.2d Industrial Co.,& Youngdahl C. E. (1972); Contracting Central Co. v. *4 is Certainly provision Pa. 209 A.2d case. fair and reasonable the circumstances under Because there sufficient “minimum were this express and because of and Arkansas dismiss trial court was error the for lack of appellant’s complaint appellee.
Reversed.
George Dudley, Rose dissent. JJ., Smith George Smith, seven Rose Of the Justice, dissenting. recognizing personal of bur statute long-arm subsections conduct, only based on the one applicable jurisdiction “arising person’s... from this caserelates to the transacting any business in this State.” Ark. Stat. Ann. § (C) (1) (a). construing language Even that to the process clause, limit allowable extreme under the due I agree any appellee the cannot transacted in business Arkansas. sale-and-financing place
aIn transaction which took in appellee and the executed documents by Copytronics ostensibly which a machine to sold company, Leasing ostensibly and SD the machine leased to the The machine all negotiations inwere The Florida. documents were sent to Leasing Arkansas, signing approved by where SD the transaction papers. appellee Neither the nor machine appellee payments by ever in Arkansas. The made Leasing’s to SD office in not see how Arkansas. I do it can fairly be said that the transacted business in printed especially form, is
The itself a for SD Leasing. paragraphs, It consists numbered all which except print. paragraphs in three are letters are: fine The three in (1) capital provision charge for a late of lVz% (2) by law; or the month SD maximum allowed a disclaimer express implied of all or warranties: and statement that the lease is non-cancellable an acknow- ledgement that the lessee had read its entirety. every respect the lease is written for the benefit advantage (which actually appears lessor to be a company). finance In the I circumstances do not seehow the say fine-print attempting “certainly” to is fair and reasonable. judgment. would affirm the
I joins in J., this dissent. Dudley,