Opinion ID: 3048411
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co. (U.S. 1972)

Text: Although not strictly an arbitration case, the Supreme Court’s M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 92 S. Ct. 1907 (1972) (“The Bremen”), held that forum-selection clauses are “prima facie valid.” Id. at 10, 92 S. Ct. at 1913. The Supreme Court disclaimed the “parochial concept that all disputes must be resolved under our laws and in our courts” and cautioned that the United States “cannot have trade and commerce in world markets and international waters exclusively on our terms, governed by our laws, and resolved in our courts.” Id. at 9, 92 S. Ct. at 1912-13. The contract in The Bremen provided that “‘[a]ny dispute arising [between the parties] must be treated before the London Court of Justice.’” Id. at 2, 92 S. Ct. at 1909. The Supreme Court recognized that English law likely would be applied to adjudicate the claim. See id. at 13 n.15, 92 S. Ct. at 1915 n.15 (stating “while the contract here did not specifically provide that the substantive law of England should be applied, it is the general rule in English courts that the parties are assumed, absent contrary indication, to have designated the forum with the view that it should apply its own law”). The Court remarked that “the forum clause was also an effort to obtain certainty as to the applicable substantive law.” 12 Id. Accordingly, the forum-selection clause in The Bremen contained choice-oflaw implications as well—English, not American law, would apply. The Supreme Court announced a strong presumption in favor of enforcing such forum-selection clauses, despite the possibility that a markedly different result would be obtained if the case proceeded in English courts as opposed to American courts.6