Opinion ID: 2082746
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Quality and nature of contacts.

Text: While courts refuse to prescribe mechanical rules in matters of jurisdiction over nonresidents, a common characteristic of defendants properly subject to jurisdiction emerges from the cases  such defendants initiated contacts with the forum, they actively sought out business in the state, they purposely availed themselves of this jurisdiction. By contrast, [t]he unilateral activity of those [forum residents] who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State. Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. at 253, 78 S.Ct. at 1239. The distinction between initiating or being drawn into contact with the forum is especially relevant in this case where, unlike most of the cases in which the jurisdictional issue arises, the nonresident defendant is the buyer and the resident plaintiff is the seller. [7] We have previously distinguished between sellers and buyers, noting that jurisdiction under Minn.Stat. § 303.13 (1980) was proper in cases in which: [T]he nonresident defendant had been the aggressor    and had had substantial contact with the forum, invoking its protection for the privilege of doing business here. [Such a defendant] subjected itself to the reciprocal obligation of amenability to suit in return for the right to compete for sales in our market places. Fourth Northwestern National Bank of Minneapolis v. Hilson Industries, Inc., 264 Minn. 110, 115-16, 117 N.W.2d 732, 735 (1962). In Hilson, the court observed that a general tendency of courts to require less in the ways of sales activity to bring a foreign corporation within the jurisdiction of a state has not been accompanied by any parallel lessening of requirements as to purchasing activities. Id., 264 Minn. at 116, 117 N.W.2d at 735 (emphasis in original) (quoting Waltham Precision Instrument Co. v. McDonnell Aircraft Corp., 203 F.Supp. 539, 541 (D.Mass.1962)). Because this case isolates the duty to pay in the forum state as a significant contact, we note that in Hilson the court stated that payment in the forum state arose out of an effort by the nonresident defendant [buyer] to accommodate plaintiff [seller]. Fixing the place of payment at plaintiff's business residence is hardly the kind of commercial benefit to defendant that must be balanced by a countervailing capitulation to jurisdiction under § 303.13. Id., 264 Minn. at 118, 117 N.W.2d at 736. Similarly, we held that jurisdiction could not be obtained over a nonresident egg buyer where the seller's representatives had solicited the defendant's business and arranged the sale in question outside the forum. Marshall Egg Transport Co. v. Bender-Goodman Co., 275 Minn. 534, 148 N.W.2d 161 (1967). We stated there that, [I]t would be harsh justice to require defendant to submit to the jurisdiction of the Minnesota court on the basis of the meager contact of defendant with anyone in Minnesota. Id., 275 Minn. at 537-38, 148 N.W.2d at 164. Applying Minnesota law to facts very similar to the present case, a federal district court determined that jurisdiction in Minnesota was not available over a nonresident defendant buyer whose only contacts with the resident seller were, first, a contract of sale executed in Indiana in response to overtures from the plaintiff's sales representative traveling in Indiana and, second, the nonresident's refusal to make payment to the resident seller after a dispute over the quality of the products shipped. Guardian Packaging Corp. v. Kapak Industries, Inc., 316 F.Supp. 952 (D.Minn.1970). [8] Where jurisdiction has been found, this court has noted that the nonresident buyers initiated and actively pursued the Minnesota seller's business or had other contacts with the forum so that an acceptable minimum was reached. Fourth Northwestern National Bank of Minneapolis v. Hilson Industries, Inc., 264 Minn. 110, 117 N.W.2d 732 (1962); Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis v. Norris, 270 N.W.2d 290 (Minn.1978). While rigid rules cannot be applied in evaluating whether traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice are served, we find that, in the particular context of the facts of this case, the quantity and the quality and nature of the contacts between nonresident Homstad and the Florida forum do not meet the level required for the assertion of jurisdiction over Homstad. Therefore, we reverse the trial court's determination that jurisdiction was proper and hold that the Florida default judgment against the appellant is not enforceable in Minnesota. Reversed.