CameronNewport;3067547]Absolutely incorrect. You're assigning arguments to me that I never made, and you're ignoring the arguments I did make.
How is that. In the OP's situation, you said because the buyer initiated contact and since they made the contact with the Florida entity, Florida claims jurisdiction. Then you quoted a case where the seller was determined to have made contact (in an eBay situation, just like our here) and somehow argued that it applied to our case. It states the facts are completely opposite.
case cited
seller NOT in Florida, buyer in Florida, ebay sale
results; seller ruled as having initiated contact, Florida claimed jurisdiction
our case: seller IN florida, buyer in NY,
so, how do you get the in our case, buyer made initial contact? How do you get Florida has jurisdiction?
The facts are completely opposite so, based on that, since in the case cited Florida did claim jurisdiction, the opposite would be Florida DOES NOT have jurisdiction in our case.
The court noted: "Rotta alleged that Jones' representatives initiated communications with Rotta, knowing Rotta was a Florida resident." How could the simple act of posting an eBay auction in NY be construed as knowingly communicating with a specific resident of Florida? Common sense tells us that something occurred outside the parameters of a typical eBay transaction
.really Common sense? Not a chance. Either you have support for the claim or it is what you see.
In the cited case, yes, you did and that is the only thing different here. There is no claimed fraud in the inducement to contract in our case.
You either haven't read my posts very carefully, or you're purposely creating a strawman that you can tear down.
read every one. The straw man is out in my field chasing away crows so don't worry about him.
