Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais
Florida Supreme Court
554 So. 2d 499 (1989)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
J.S. Parthenais (plaintiff) owned a collections business in Florida. Venetian Salami Company (Venetian) (defendant), a Canadian corporation, contacted Parthenais about collecting a delinquent account-receivable. Parthenais ultimately sued Venetian in Florida for breach-of-contract, alleging that Venetian failed to pay for services performed. Parthenais claimed that Venetian contacted him in Florida about collecting on an account-receivable collectable in Florida, New York, and Canada, and that Venetian agreed to pay Parthenais in Florida. In contrast, Venetian claimed that it contacted Parthenais about a delinquent account collectible in New York, that all discussions about potentially engaging Parthenais’s services occurred in either New York or Canada, and that no payment agreement was ever reached. Parthenais claimed personal jurisdiction over Venetian, a nonresident corporation, under Florida’s long-arm statute. The trial court granted Venetian’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, holding that Parthenais failed to establish that Venetian had the required minimum contacts with Florida to ground personal jurisdiction. Parthenais appealed. The appellate court reversed, holding that (1) jurisdiction over Venetian was proper under Florida’s long-arm statute; and (2) Parthenais did not need to establish minimum contacts in addition to satisfying the long-arm statute. Venetian appealed to the Florida Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Grimes, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 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.