re wisconsin wrongful death statute doesn't just simply limit damages in certain scenarios it only applies to debts clause within the state doesn't that make of the masses that wisconsin has the strongest interest in making sure that its own citizens receive compensatory damages if you doesn't florida does in florida also have an interest  making sure that companies that require claims to be litigated here also properly compensated those who are injured not according  no that's not i agree with you the analysis doesn't end there but here for example the law of the flies doesn't help you in any way places a contract doesn't really help you in any way  inaccessibility of a foreign forum doesn't really help you in any way and yet the law was before in florida the base of the ship owners operations and the shipowner's allegiance are all factors that at least potentially written like all conflict of laws test focuses on which of the proposed states has the most significant relationship to the incident and thus the dominant interest in having that state's law apply now surprised to hear  caribbean continue to argue that judge walton aga did not engage in or apply the law written below she clearly did we set forth the ruling as our state of the case and facts in our brief  that royal caribbean has always relied upon to suggest that wisconsin law should apply actually upon analysis collapse into one and then into zero will start with the place of the contract the contract and course of course it was issued from florida where else would it have been issued from its own royal caribbean international letterhead that's their primary place of business it's not sent to the protests in wisconsin it's sent to a travel agent in connecticut and although in their reply brief they say that  testified on the quickly that it was delivered to her they're not exactly accurate at page thirty five of her testimony that's on march th of two thousand and nineteen the question is asked and the actual tickets that were delivered were delivered to you in wisconsin actually answers correct then she says well actually if i could i just thought of something i went through a travel agent and the agent pitot he was the one who arranged the trip for us and then they follow up ok you contact the travel agent they made the arrangements correct so  the record stablish is that the place of contract was between connecticut and florida but ritson tells us that in a maritime tort case the place of contract is entitled to little or no effect so but wisconsin doesn't care about that wisconsin says we only have a cause of action for wrongful death there are costs in wisconsin not only that the supreme court of wisconsin said however if some other state's law applies we'll let you apply that so in this case that other state is florida now if it is true that in that case the other state was the place of the injury but there was no other state that was argued this below and the district court acknowledge it don't apply and domestic or national versus international cases what you have left of the ritz and there's not a blade of daylight between that and th anomaly so we're left with the law of the forum which in this case is a significant factor and the defendant's principal place of business not just a place where it does business but a principal place of business i know that world caribbean started out citing cortez and then then withdrew from it because in a case that you know again once you once you are dealing with a domestic maritime case beyond as more or less right on entitled to remember and you know what rule caribbean obviously agrees because royal caribbean did not appeal that really they could have appealed that ruling if it thought that the that the result was it was too high but it did laws analysis undertakes conflict of laws analysis doesn't say hey we want to make sure that you know that if you apply this florida's law that it doesn't you don't get more than you would have gotten under wisconsin or pennsylvania law and get into pennsylvania law  because caribbean has a florida form selection clause and because it's based here that every case involving conflict of laws and a yamaha situation is going to require the application of florida law she looked at the only two states that were presented to her and under cortez which again is not in and once you strip away the international aspects of limits and which defended asked the trial court to do and she did florida nonetheless retains an interest in ensuring that a compensatory damages point and got the case certified for unlocked or appeal so that the system was made prior to finding out what did jerry might do or cribbing could have done that in this case they didn't so now their monday morning quarterbacking but it doesn't do anything with it doesn't affect the conflict it was analysis which is applying the state's interest what they're if they wanted to complain about what they think is the misapplication of florida's law then they should have appeal even though they didn't really rely on it and for good reasons today the only state whose law was was and play and tucker was alabama and because alabama's law provided no  damages under alabama's law that that had been there been a summary judgment entered but that issue was not before the court so the court in tucker was not dealing with a conflict of last case tucker cannot be read as what the caribbean didn't brief to suggest that final score you know florida to wisconsin one or something like that but you know she went through the analysis and the and the controlling factor of those analyses was that florida has an interest wisconsin does not and therefore florida law applies if there are no further questions i would ask the court to affirm all right thank you very much mr hamilton you've got some rebuttal time correct and they actually were delivered to you in wisconsin correct and then she says well actually i quote i just thought of something i went through a travel agent and that's where she stops well let's do what do royal caribbean's records say about whether or not a travel agent purchased the tickets for them i don't think that's in the record judge barnes isn't that isn't that a problem for you oh it's not a problem for me because there isn't then because the place of the contract even if you go through a that your contracting party use if you go through a travel engine cessna called and called a travel agent in india and somehow got the ticket an incentive to wisconsin law would be the contract for tickets why am i and why is the and my offer is to pay a royal caribbean set rates for a cruise why isn't a contract created when royal caribbean in miami accept my offer further questions i would just rely upon the rest of the brief all right thank you very much mr hamilton and thank you all that constitutes the end of our oral argument panel this week we thank you  much for your participation and court is in recess