Opinion ID: 1115807
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Do The Various Forum Selection Clauses Encompass This Lawsuit?

Text: In our view, the language in the barge charters does not cover this action. Sealaska is not trying to enforce any term or provision in the charters; it is seeking to rescind the agreements in their entirety. Petitioners argue that Sealaska's claims are intrinsically related to the terms and provisions of the agreement. Perhaps so, but this is not what the contract states. It is not the task of the courts to rewrite the language to conform to the wishes of Crowson and Seattle-First. We do not think that our reading of the clause is too literal. If contracting parties do not want a forum selection clause to apply to lawsuits for rescission on the grounds of fraud, they would likely use language similar to that used in the charters. If the obvious intent of the parties was to have all possible suits arising out of the agreements litigated in Washington, they could have easily so provided  they certainly knew how, as the forum selection clause in the equipment lease, discussed below, clearly illustrates. The equipment lease contains broader language, covering any suit arising out of the lease. We hold that a suit to rescind a lease, based on fraud in the inducement, arises out of the lease, even if the complaint alleges only claims sounding in tort. See Giordano v. Witzer, 558 F. Supp. 1261 (E.D.Penn. 1983). [8] With regard to the consents, the issue is somewhat different. Sealaska does not contend that the action to void the consents is not a legal action or proceeding in respect of the consents. Instead, Sealaska argues that the clause provides that the parties consent to the jurisdiction of certain courts, but does not require that all litigation be maintained in those courts. In our view, the clause should be read as designating a mandatory forum. The relevant language provides that any suit may be brought in the [Washington] courts or any other competent court as [Seattle-First] may elect. Sealaska's interpretation renders the first part of this sentence meaningless, for Seattle-First would not need Sealaska's consent before suing in Washington. [9] Although the clause could have been more clearly written, we conclude that the language should be read to mean that Pacific Western may sue only in Washington or other courts selected by Seattle-First. [10]