Court Opinion

ID: 9730412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:11:42.706663+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:06.311037
License: Public Domain

CHEZEM, Judge,
concurring.
I concur with the majority and consider the result reached here as consistent with my position in Omnisource Corp. v. Fortune Trading Co. (1989), Ind.App., 537 N.E.2d 43.
Although the specific transaction in Om-nisource is similar to the facts in the case at hand, the business dealings of the parties are dissimilar. Omnisource and Fortune Trading had a history of doing business, and at one time, Fortune Trading was located in Indiana. Considering the prior negotiations of the parties, I find the exercise of jurisdiction over Fortune Trading to be within the bounds of fair play.
Conversely, the negotiations between Baseball and Pannette were conducted outside of Indiana. Baseball even went to the Pannettes' home to negotiate their agreement.
Accordingly, I concur.