Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Co., 407 U.S. 1, 15, 92 S.Ct. 1907, 32 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972), the Supreme Court held that “the forum clause should control absent a strong showing that it should be set aside.” The Second Circuit, however, has since made clear that the “extra protection that Bremen accords to mandatory forum selection clauses,” is not applicable to a permissive forum-selection clause which “contemplates more than one forum.” Blanco v. Banco Indus. de Venezuela, S.A., 997 F.2d 974, 979 (2d Cir.1993). Further, “[a]n agreement conferring jurisdiction in one forum will not be interpreted as excluding jurisdiction elsewhere unless it contains specific language of exclusion.” John Boutari and Son, Wines and Spirits, S.A v. Attiki Importers and Distribs., Inc., 22 F.3d 51, 53 (2d Cir.1994) (emphasis added) (<HOLDING>). Defendants argue that, despite the Franchise 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a forumselection clause which stated that any dispute arising between the parties hereunder shall come within the jurisdiction of the competent greek courts was permissive rather than mandatory (B) holding that a forumselection clause was mandatory where it stated that for any action brought to enforce such terms and conditions venue shall lie exclusively in clark county washington (C) holding that a forumselection clause was mandatory because it provided for exclusive jurisdiction and venue in a particular court (D) holding clause reading the parties agree that in any dispute jurisdiction and venue shall be in california to be mandatory (E) holding that the clause any dispute that shall arise between the parties  with reference to the interpretation of this agreement or their rights with respect to any transaction involved was broad
Output (English): holding clause reading the parties agree that in any dispute jurisdiction and venue shall be in california to be mandatory