Tennessee Imports, Inc. v. P.P. Filippi & Prix Italia S.R.L.
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
745 F. Supp. 1314 (1990)
- Written by Sara Adams, JD
Facts
Prix Italia S.R.L. (Prix) (defendant) was an Italian machine manufacturer. Tennessee Imports, Inc. (plaintiff) contracted with Prix in 1985 to be the exclusive regional distributor of Prix machines. Article 8 of the contract required that the parties submit any dispute related to the contract to the Arbitration Court of the Chamber of Commerce in Venice, Italy. In August 1989, Prix gave Tennessee Imports a notice of termination of the exclusive distributorship. Tennessee Imports filed a complaint against Prix and Paul Filippi, a Prix manager, in federal district court for contract violations. Prix and Filippi moved to dismiss the complaint for improper venue, arguing Article 8 was a forum-selection clause requiring the dispute to be heard at the Arbitration Court of the Chamber of Commerce in Venice. Tennessee Imports argued in part that (1) Article 8 did not establish a forum because the selected institution was nonjudicial, (2) enforcement of Article 8 would cause Tennessee Imports significant inconvenience by requiring it to bring witnesses and evidence to Italy, and (3) Article 8 was unconscionable because Prix had a stronger bargaining position than Tennessee Imports and Tennessee Imports could not negotiate the arbitration provision.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Nixon, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.