Where both parties seek summary judgment, each is entitled to the benefit of all reasonable doubts and inferences in determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists when the opposing party's motion is being judged. In the alternative, claimant argues that 620 also supports jurisdiction in Vermont because Vermont can reasonably determine the rights of the claimant, defendant has substantial and sufficient contacts with Vermont, and defendant would use Vermont courts for its benefit and protection if need be. The defendant argues that plaintiff was hired outside Vermont because the employment contract could only be accepted by performance, and claimant accepted the offer by showing up for work in Ipswich, Massachusetts. Defendant also argues that asserting jurisdiction pursuant to 620 would violate defendant's Due Process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment because defendant does not have the requisite minimum contacts with Vermont. This is a genuine difference of a material fact.
Contract formation has a substantial bearing on the issue of jurisdiction.
Although not dispositive, the place of contract is relevant regarding the defendant's contacts with Vermont. The place of contract shows whether or not defendant availed itself of Vermont, benefited from Vermont laws, and could reasonably expect to be haled into a Vermont court. Both parties differ as to the factual circumstances surrounding the formation of the employment contract. Based on the evidence, reasonable minds could differ as to whether the contract was accepted by an oral promise over the telephone in Vermont, or whether the contract was accepted by performance when the claimant began performing in Ipswich, Massachusetts. Next is the issue of jurisdiction.