In so ruling, the Superior Court rejected the Defendant’s arguments that the trial court had erred and abused its discretion when the trial court exercised personal jurisdiction over the foreign company based upon either the Defendant’s independent contacts with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or its relationship with a Co-Defendant company.
The Superior Court noted that the trial court properly exercised specific personal jurisdiction over the foreign manufacturer with no minimum contacts of its own within the forum. The court found that, based upon the actions and contacts of the foreign manufacturer’s exclusive distributor, with whom the manufacturer had a close agency relationship, jurisdiction over the foreign manufacturer was warranted.
The Superior Court found that the Co-Defendant distributor had acted as an agent for the foreign manufacturer by selling the manufacturers products to customers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK
Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Dec. 27, 2022).
Source of image: Photo by Elena Mozhvilo at www.unsplash.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.