Illinois Court of Appeals - 1990 (193 Ill. App 3d 767, 550 N.E.2d 645)
Facts:
P (Chalek) owned a software company in IL and sold software to Ds Lee (CA) and Klein (NY).
Both Ds sent P checks for the software. When software was found to be unsatisfactory, they returned the software and put holds on the checks.
P sued Ds for payment.
Ds claim that IL does not have personal jurisdiction over them.
Procedural History:
Lower court found for Ds.
Appeals court affirmed, found for Ds.
Issues:
Does entering into a passive contract with an entity in a forum state subject someone to personal jurisdiction of that forum state?
Holding/Rule:
Entering into a passive contract with an entity in a state does not subject someone to personal jurisdiction in that state.
Actively entering into a contract (i.e. dictating or vigorously negotiating contract terms or by inspecting production facilities) would dissipate the unfairness associated with the exercise of long arm jurisdiction.
Reasoning:
Distinguishing between active and passive buyers protects out of state mail order purchasers as well as in state custom-built producers.
Both Ds were passive purchasers, so IL has no personal jurisdiction.
The mere fact that an out of state individual has entered into a contract with a resident of the forum state is not sufficient by itself to subject the nonresident to the in personam jurisdiction of the state's courts. (reasoning borrowed from SCOTUS on Burger King)
The ruling in Empress Int'l was inconsistent with SCOTUS ruling in Burger King.
Dissent:
None.
Notes:
This seems like more of a policy decision, worried about setting a certain precedent.
The decision doesn't fall directly in line with Burger King.
