Business Law 16th Edition by Jane Mallor,James Barnes ,Arlen Langvardt,Jamie Darin Prenkert,Martin McCrory

تمرين 10

Colorado resident Oren Benton and Cameco Corp., a Canadian firm, had engaged in various business transactions over the years. After negotiations that included telephone communications and mailed communications and after a trip by Cameco representatives to Colorado to check on Benton's business, Benton and Cameco entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The MOU called for Benton to purchase uranium from Cameco for purposes of resale. The MOU also set forth the key terms of a planned joint venture involving uranium trading activities. However, the transactions contemplated by the MOU did not take place because Cameco's board of directors did not approve them. Benton later sued Cameco in federal district court in Colorado, asserting claims for breach of contract and tortious interference with existing and prospective business relationships. Colorado's long-arm statute extends to the full reach of what due process principles allow. Cameco filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the court lacked in personam jurisdiction. The district court ruled that Cameco did not have the requisite minimum contracts with Colorado, that the court therefore lacked in personam jurisdiction, and that dismissal was appropriate. Benton appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Did Cameco have the necessary minimum contacts with Colorado? Would it offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice to require Cameco to defend the case in the federal district court in Colorado?