<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"                      <p class=\"imgtitle\"></p>           AUSTIN &ndash; Hidalgo County District Judge Noe Gonzalez kept jurisdiction of a lawsuit that belonged in Illinois, the Supreme Court of Texas ruled on Jan. 9. <br /><br />All nine justices agreed that Gonzalez should have enforced a forum clause in contracts between International Profit Associates and McAllen Tropicpak Inc. <br /><br />The contracts specified that Illinois law would apply to any dispute and litigation would proceed at Lake County courthouse in Waukegan, Ill. <br /><br />The justices reversed the 13th District appeals court in Corpus Christi, which had ruled that Gonzalez could keep the case. <br />McAllen Tropicpak hired International Profit Associates for consulting services in 2004. <br /><br />The businesses executed three contracts that covered general services, financial assessment and tax services. <br /><br />International Profit Associates recommended that Tropicpak hire David Salinas to increase sales. <br /><br />\"Tropicpak hired Salinas, who allegedly embezzled large sums of money from the company,\" the justices wrote in an unsigned opinion. <br /><br />Tropicpak sued Salinas and International Profit Associates in Hidalgo County, claiming negligence, fraud, misrepresentation, and breach of good faith and fair dealing. <br /><br />International Profit Associates moved to dismiss for transfer to Illinois. <br /><br />Gonzalez held a hearing in 2006, and another in 2007. She denied the motion on May 29, 2007, but called it a motion to compel and dated the order May 29, 2006. <br /><br />International Profit Associates sought corrections, and Gonzalez signed a corrected order on Oct. 23, 2007. <br /><br />\"IPA obtained a copy of the corrected order by fax in December 2007,\" the Court wrote. <br /><br />International Profit Associates sought a writ of mandamus, but the 13th District denied relief. <br /><br />At the Supreme Court, Tropicpak claimed the clauses didn't apply because employment recommendations went beyond the scope of the contract. <br /><br />Tropicpak argued that International Profit Associates delayed the assertion of its rights. <br /><br />It attacked the Illinois clauses as ambiguous and fraudulent. <br /><br />It claimed that public interest and the interests of its witnesses favored a Texas forum and argued that enforcement of the clauses would deprive it of its day in court. <br /><br />Tropicpak argued that it shouldn't have to pursue two suits, one against International Profit Associates in Illinois and one against Salinas in Texas. <br /><br />The justices disagreed on all counts. <br /><br />They held that \"it was the errors and delays of the trial court and Tropicpak that hindered IPA's ability to initiate mandamus proceedings.\" <br /><br />They wrote, \"The forum selection clauses in this case are not susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation.\" <br /><br />They wrote that the contracts did not limit the extent or form of consulting services. <br /><br />\"The recommendation to hire a new employee to bolster Tropicpak's sales was a proposal that IPA made as an integral part of its consulting services,\" they wrote. <br /><br />\"IPA offered to do business on a particular basis as set out in the two page contracts, and Tropicpak accepted the offer,\" they wrote. <br /><br />\"It is presumed that Tropicpak understood and agreed to the contents of its contracts,\" they wrote. <br /><br />They prescribed separate suits for International Profit Associates and Salinas. <br /><br />\"If all it takes to avoid a forum selection clause is to join as defendants local residents who are not parties to the agreement, then forum selection clauses will be of little value,\" they wrote. <br /><br />Ken Nunley, Chad Upham and Kelly Putney Rogers represented International Profit Associates. <br /><br />Raymond Thomas, Rebecca Vela and Tracy Altman Spillman represented Tropicpak.<br />"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://setexasrecord.com/stories/510610474-texas-sc-enforces-forum-selection-clause-in-contract-case>