作者	玛丽肯·凯·加恩
出版社
出版时间	2001-02-28

特色：

On the other hand, although purposeful contact with the forum state is found most easily if the defendant actively conducts business in the state,deliberate activity outside the state that is aimed at obtaining some benefit, albeit indirect, from the forum state may satisfy this part of the Shoe standard. It is not clear whether it is sufficient that the defendant merely have purposefully entered its product into the general stream of commerce or whether it knowingly must have placed its product in a stream of commerce that was directed at theforum state. The Supreme Court in the Volkswagen case suggested that jurisdiction in Oklahoma could be asserted over the international manufacturer and the national importer of the allegedly defective auto because both of those entities purposefully entered the national market and received economic benefits from that market. However, in a later case, Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court (S.Ct.1987), the Court was evenly divided on the question whether it was necessary to show that the defendant had to purposefully direct its product toward the forum state (California) or just the national market in order to constitute sufficientconduct to cross the minimum contacts threshold.Under either view, the rationale for finding sufficient contact is that the defendant's conduct outside the state is of such a character that the defendant should reasonably foresee that if its product malfunctions in any state in the general market, it may be subject to suit where the problem occurred.Thus, the conduct of the defendant outside the state must be examined carefully to determine if it was of such a character that defendant should have foreseen having to defend in the forum state.The quality and purposefulness of the defendant'scontact with the state is related not only to foreseeability, but also to the notion that the defendant has obtained some benefit or privilege from the forum state so that it is fair to require the defendant to defend suit there. For example, in a products liability setting such as the Volkswagen case,the local retailer, in contrast to the manufacturer,has no way to foresee where an auto it sells may be driven. Further, it has done nothing itself to try to benefit economically from business with other states' citizens. Consequently, it cannot be held accountable in distant fora where the product later malfunctions. Similarly, the Supreme Court hasnoted that purchases and related trips into the forum state are not sufficient, standing alone, to sustain jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation for a claim unrelated to those purchase transactions.Helicopteros Nacional de Colombia ,S.A.v.Hall(S.Ct.1984).