Opinion ID: 895198
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: In a forum-selection clause case involving a medically infirm party, what do seriously inconvenient and unreasonable or unjust mean?

Text: A litigant may defeat enforcement of a forum-selection clause by showing one of four things: (1) enforcement would be unreasonable or unjust, (2) the clause is invalid for reasons of fraud or overreaching, (3) enforcement would contravene a strong public policy of the forum where the suit was brought, or (4) the selected forum would be seriously inconvenient for trial. [6] Today's case focuses on grounds (1) and (4) above, and while I understand that the slender record makes this case a less-than-ideal vehicle for extended analysis, I believe we should one day explain more fully how these rather opaque phrases apply to assertions of medical hardship. Most Texas cases avoid fleshing out the term seriously inconvenient; the only discernible definition seems to emerge from piecing together examples of what various courts have held not to be seriously inconvenient. [7] Many cases recite the general standard from M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., [8] essentially that a forum clause . . . may [] be `unreasonable' and unenforceable if the chosen forum is seriously inconvenient for the trial of the action, and conclude the party's proof fell short. [9] None of the cases, however, are medical-hardship cases; today's case is the first, meaning Texas courts have no guidance for discerning the confusing, but apparently consequential, line between inconvenient (clause enforced) and seriously inconvenient (clause evaded) . . . not to mention what separately qualifies as unreasonable or unjust in the context of someone asserting health maladies that arose after the clause was adopted. Cases involving medical hardship strike me as somewhat unique. Financial or logistical burdens may be easily anticipated; not so with many medical burdens. [10] The Court notes that when a forum's inconvenience is foreseeable at the time of contracting, the party opposing enforcement must show that trial in the contractual forum will be so gravely difficult and inconvenient that he will for all practical purposes be deprived of his day in court. [11] True, but in conducting that analysis we must also confront what we confirmed just last year: a party asserting inconvenience can avoid enforcement by proving that special and unusual circumstances developed after the contracts were executed such that litigation in the chosen forum would work a deprivation of its day in court. [12] So can exacting evidence of severe medical ailments constitute special and unusual circumstances in certain cases? The Court never mentions this special and unusual circumstances basis for negating a forum-selection clause, but that is immaterial here. Mrs. Prescott's only evidence of post-contract medical problems is her lone affidavit, which even if wholly persuasive, is wholly insufficient. Accordingly, we need not consider the affidavit's substance (or lack thereof) and whether Mrs. Prescott's ailments qualify as special and unusual circumstances. In sum, this Court has never addressed, nor has any Texas appellate court, whether medical concerns can negate a forum-selection clause. Given the ubiquity of such clauses in everyday contracts, both commercial and consumer, I hope a future case with a more-developed record gives us an opportunity to clarify how the various bases for avoiding enforcement apply when a party asserts serious medical hardship. This seems only fair. Actions to enforce forum-selection clauses reach us via mandamus, [13] a remedy controlled largely by equitable principles, [14] and we must determine if the court below clearly abused its discretion in denying enforcement. It seems inequitable to fault lower courts for acting without reference to guiding principles if there are few on-point principles to be referenced. I understand why the Court declines to use today's imperfect case to dive deeper and provide greater specificity for forum-selection cases involving medical hardship, but I hope a future case will give us occasion to say more.