from vertically integrated hospitality company is the way they describe themselves that the cation services as part of those food and wife was injured when customer to sign it's not filled out in this case the affidavit we are faced with came entirely out of the blue saying these were part of the contract you agreed with and it was never given an opportunity to take that result a split among circuits as to how a contractual form selection clause could be enforced i think as a result of that case the circuits procedure would have shifted there is no stat there is no statutory venue and there's a form selection clause why isn't world welby three sadly the right thing to you well i think fed will be three is the only way to quick to say there's no statutory venue and i agree with would be a problem if somebody moves to dismiss a complaint under rule twelve you know your state claim and the district judge says no no sorry that's the wrong one the complaint does state a claim but your papers show that you're entitle to judgment on the pleadings under rule twelve feet and i'm now dismissing the complaint giving judgment on the pleadings you think that's reversible error coming in from left field which i never had to address a chance to fairly address by discovery of the millers in an impossible situation you know you keep talking about discovery but you don't explain what it is you want to discover i want to discover the contract then two years into this litigation i thought the defendants furnished the contract i don't think so i think that your clients can deny receiving the for cogs if they do then i could easily understand the need for discovery to find out whether that is true but if they don't what's what i'm going to discover they have no recollection of a foreign selection close there was some paperwork that passed hands and we don't have it anymore yeah well look the world is full of people who are bound by contracts who do not like having read them who deny remembering them who deny understanding them that was true in carnival cruise lines the plaintive said well we didn't read the back side of the cruise tech and we didn't understand the form selection clause and the supreme court said that's not relevant you it as a matter of fairness we should be getting that opportunity to see exactly how these were presented it's concerning when you have things that are clearly boilerplate that have places to be signed by the defendants and outside and there's no indication that if they ever agreed to this as far as their recollection goes the impossible position that numbers are end is either i can submit incomplete evidence for the court  conference which was not agreed upon by the other side why are you so reluctant to go to pennsylvania location public twenty minutes away from my clients all of the contact as to how this was purchased any information as to what was presented contractually and when it would be in wisconsin all the medical treatment there's going to be doctors involved here you've got a good faith basis to contest the letter and to city of the contract that was submitted with the motion to dismiss and i didn't see that anywhere there was a request for discovery but i didn't see any statement by you that there document itself and i don't know how i could have done that short of submitting an affidavit into the record which becomes problematic whom did your clients pay there's a question as to that as well i believe that it was factual travel who they wrote the check to for credit it was an electronic payment and i don't have complete information at this point either  three years later they sued out a loser corporation which doesn't exist and then they brought on my clients a year after that additional defendants as the procedural fairness of the motion to dismiss raised counsel you know this or argument was not that it was improper venue to to the force washcloths that certainly was one of our arguments a but we also argued that there was no personal jurisdiction that there was substantial events didn't occur in the state of wisconsin and they basically the everything related to wisconsin started and ended with them going to fox world travel and buying that vacation we would have to know a lot more about  relationships between these various defendants and the travel company that sold this couple in order to decide a question of personal jurisdiction i mean that kind of thing especially in this context would be difficult  answered those one directed a personal jurisdiction they were about apple leisure group and the trademark and that relationship to the rest of the entity so we answered those even though we were under no obligation to do so because we believe that there was no personal jurisdiction in this case they could have asked for additional discovery on the personal jurisdiction issue i think that they could have been more specific as to what they were asking for to give the lower court an idea where this was going and the same that could be said alternative ground for reform and salute disclaimers let your clients off the clock that's right so how much did your clients get paid for this vacation it was lightly less than five thousand dollars everybody looks at them and says who are you then i think they absolutely could i think what though i wouldn't your disclaimers get you off the hook i think what the disclaimers get you off the hook for is what those entities do while you work there whether or satisfaction thing started as long as they provide a bed for example even if it's infested with bedbugs and lice your clients would be off the hook i think that's right i think we disclaim all liability for actions in emissions of the of the hotel were not a complete omission to provide service i think that would be a breach of contract on our part because we know that would not have been as a draw that line from the contract language lighting in the contract language what it sorry that makes no sense to me and it sounds to me like you're saying we stand by our contract but we're not responsible for anything what am i missing here i mean we're not responsible for anything that is done by the hotel while disclaim any liability for the actions or omissions of these independent suppliers but you're saying oh we're we are responsible for some of their omissions were some of their actions were responsible for our own emiss including the folks that we've made these are injuries i did to me this is nonsense you're taking a lot of money from people for the dream vacations and then disclaim any responsibility for it and letting you know for you to say now well no we do take responsibility yes absolutely your honor and i think we stand by that argument that in this case of these facts we can't be held liable under disclaimer for what the hotel did in selecting the fish in preparing the menu in choosing which fish buyers we didn't have any