Opinion ID: 2628913
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the forum selection clause and choice of law provisions are enforceable

Text: ¶ 14 The district court erred in its denial of Matrix's motion to dismiss and in its grant of Innerlight's motion for summary judgment when it held that the forum selection and choice of law provisions are not binding on the parties. When interpreting a contract, we begin by looking within the four corners of the contract to determine the parties' intentions, which are controlling. Bakowski v. Mountain States Steel, Inc., 2002 UT 62, ¶ 16, 52 P.3d 1179 (citations omitted). If the language within the four corners of the contract is unambiguous,. . . a court determines the parties' intentions from the plain meaning of the contractual language as a matter of law. Id. Innerlight and Matrix entered into an agreement that was negotiated [4] and signed by both parties. We find that there is no ambiguity in the relevant provisions of the Contract and therefore look to the plain meaning of the contractual terms to determine the parties' intent. ¶ 15 Innerlight argues, and the district court agreed, that the condition precedent in Section 2 of the Contract applies to the entire Contract. We disagree. Section 2 of the Contract includes two paragraphs: paragraph (a) and paragraph (b). Paragraph (a) appoints [Innerlight] as the exclusive distributor of the Beverly Sassoon line of skin care products. Paragraph (b) then modifies paragraph (a) by conditioning Innerlight's acceptance of this appointment . . . upon [Innerlight's] written acceptance of [Matrix's] Product Price List. (Emphasis added.) Nothing in paragraph (b) indicates that the condition precedent applies to the entire agreement between the parties. Instead, the plain language states that the condition precedent in paragraph (b) applies to Innerlight's appointment as exclusive distributor. If the parties intended the condition precedent in paragraph (b) to apply to the entire Contract, they easily could have included language to that effect. We cannot conclude that the parties intended to condition the enforceability of the entire agreement on Innerlight's appointment as exclusive distributor when the plain language of the Contract indicates no such intent. ¶ 16 Our conclusion in this regard is buttressed by the language of Section 12 of the Contract, which contains no reference to the condition precedent found in paragraph (b) of Section 2, or to Innerlight's appointment as exclusive distributor. Rather, Section 12 plainly and unambiguously states as follows: This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted under the laws of the State of Florida and the parties agree that any action or proceeding brought concerning this Agreement may be brought only in the courts of Palm Beach County, Florida, and each party hereto hereby consents to the jurisdiction of such courts. (Emphases added.) Pursuant to Section 12, any action concerning the Contract, including a declaratory action seeking a determination that the contract is unenforceable, is governed by Florida law and may only be brought in Florida courts. Based on a plain reading of the language of the Contract, the condition precedent in Section 2(b) does not diminish the enforceability of the forum selection and choice of law provisions. Therefore, the district court erred when it denied Matrix's motion to dismiss for improper venue, and subsequently erred when it granted Innerlight's motion for summary judgment based, in part, on the erroneous conclusion that the venue terms of the Contract were unenforceable. [5]