Bubble Wrap Co.(BWC),an Atlanta corporation,has its principal place of business in New York.John,a resident of Florida,asserted on his website that BWC engaged in ongoing criminal activity,scams,and phishing.BWC sued John in the U.S.District Court for the District of New York,alleging defamation and injury to BWC's business in New York.John filed a motion to dismiss the case alleging that neither subject-matter nor in personam jurisdiction existed.The court granted the defendant's motion and dismissed the case because:
A)BWC could not meet its burden of establishing sufficient "minimum contacts."
B)the court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction.
C)the court neither had subject-matter jurisdiction nor in personam jurisdiction.
D)publishing of those statements did not amount to defamation,and thus no injury was caused to BWC's business.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

When the parties have a contractual relationship,"minimum contacts" may be shown by the parties' negotiations preceding their agreement,the course of dealing between the parties,the terms of the agreement,and foreseeable future consequences arising out of the agreement.In this case,there is no such agreement and hence,it does not apply.Federal circuit courts have rejected that merely posting defamatory or invasive material to the World Wide Web is enough to create "minimum contacts" for in personam jurisdiction.