CHAPTER 2: COURTS AND ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 21
Footnote 9: In Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot.Com, Inc., 952 F.Supp. 1119 (W.D.Pa. 1997), a
federal district court proposed three categories for classifying the types of Internet business contact: (1) substantial
business conducted online, (2) some interactivity through a Web site, and (3) passive advertising. Jurisdiction is
proper for the first category, improper for the third, and may or may not be appropriate for the second. Zippo
Footnote 19: Cleveland Construction, Inc. (CCI), was the general contractor on a project to build a grocery
store in Houston, Texas. CCI hired Levco Construction, Inc., as a subcontractor to perform excavation and grading.
The contract provided that any dispute would be resolved by arbitration in Ohio. When a dispute arose, Levco filed a
suit against CCI in a Texas state court. CCI sought to compel arbitration in Ohio under the Federal Arbitration Act
(FAA). Because a Texas statute allows a party to void a contract provision that requires arbitration outside Texas, the
court denied CCI’s request. CCI appealed.
The United States Supreme Court affirmed the Washington Supreme Court’s decision—International Shoe
had sufficient contacts with the state to allow the state to exercise jurisdiction constitutionally over it. The Court found
that the activities of the Washington sales representatives were “systematic and continuous,” resulting in a large
volume of business for International Shoe. By conducting its business within the state, the company received the
benefits and protections of the state laws and was entitled to have its rights enforced in state courts. Thus,
International Shoe’s operations established “sufficient contacts or ties with the state . . . to make it reasonable and
just according to our traditional conception of fair play and substantial justice to permit the state to enforce the
obligation” that the company incurred there.
Considering the relative bargaining power of the parties, was it fair to enforce the arbitration clause in
this contract? Yes, because either party could have refused to agree to the contract when it contained the arbitration
Why do you think that Levco did not want its claim decided by arbitration? A party is typically reluctant
to enter into a proceeding that he or she (or it) believes will have an unfavorable result. Levco might have had a less