Opinion ID: 1667169
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Waiver and abandonment

Text: ¶ 59. Finally, HICO and Hood say that, even if the forum selection clause is enforceable, Titan and St. Paul waived and abandoned their rights under the clause when their counsel stated to the trial court that Titan would be willing to change venue to another Mississippi county. ¶ 60. Waiver presupposes full knowledge of a right existing, and an intentional surrender or relinquishment of that right. It contemplates something done designedly or knowingly, which modifies or changes existing rights or varies or changes the terms and conditions of a contract. It is the voluntary surrender of a right. To establish a waiver, there must be shown an act or omission on the part of the one charged with the waiver fairly evidencing an intention permanently to surrender the right alleged to have been waived. Ewing v. Adams, 573 So.2d 1364, 1369 (Miss.1990). ¶ 61. The statement made by counsel during oral argument before the trial court does not closely resemble a waiver or abandonment of the forum selection clause. In fact, we are unable to find any language in the record which suggests a waiver. We do find where counsel for St. Paul  expressing concern to the trial court about litigating in Hood's back yard,  offered to compromise by agreeing to litigate in a different Mississippi county. The offer was rejected by both the trial court and the plaintiffs. Counsel may not now exhume the rejected offer, and re-label it as a waiver. Had the offer been accepted, we would apply a different analysis which we see no need to discuss here. ¶ 62. Accordingly, we find that requiring this case to be litigated in Bexar County, Texas, would not be so gravely difficult and inconvenient that HICO and Hood would, for all practical purposes, be deprived of their day in court. Therefore, this Zapata factor weighs in favor of enforcing the forum selection clause. 3. Whether the enforcement of the clause would contravene a strong public policy of the forum in which the suit is brought, declared by statute or judicial decision. ¶ 63. In Tel-Com, this Court held that public policy would not be violated by the enforcement of a forum selection clause between two commercial parties, negotiating at arm's length, where the clause was not hidden, or in fine print. Tel-Com., 782 So.2d at 154-155. The Representative Agreement in the case sub judice meets the Tel-Com test. We also note that Texas courts enforce valid forum selection clauses, and apply the clause to a closely-related party (transaction participant) who is not a party to the contract. Accelerated, 925 S.W.2d 66.