Court Opinion

ID: 9546891
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:37:16.217167+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:16:59.711829
License: Public Domain

HOLMAN, J.,
concurring.
One who regularly engages in interstate business subjects himself to the possible inconvenience of litigating in other states concerning the business there transacted. Anyone who either buys or sells nationally transacts business in the state of both the buyer and the seller. The fairness involved is really determined by the convenience of the litigants. If it is convenient to transact business it is not so inconvenient to litigate as to be unfair. .1 disagree that there is any logical basis for giving a preference to a defendant as does the dissenting opinion. I Therefore, I concur in allowing the seller to bring an action in Oregon as I would have permitted the purchaser to litigate in its state had it first commenced litigation there against the seller and if the statute in that state was as broad as the one in Oregon.;
Denecke, J., joins in this concurring opinion.