Skip to main content

The BUSKLAW August Newsletter: This Single-Sentence Contractual Provision Can Save - or Ruin - Your Day!

When it comes to business contracts, some provisions are more important than others. And it's true that some of these critical clauses are buried deep within a contract, so by the time you get to them, your eyes are glazed over, and you gloss over them. But that could be unfortunate. 

One such provision is what lawyers call the choice of law and forum selection clause (for convenience, "COLFS"). That clause typically reads as follows:

The validity, interpretation, and construction of this agreement are governed by the laws of the State of [INSERT STATE], and any and all claims hereunder shall be brought in [SPECIFY NAME OF COURT AND COUNTY].

A recent decision by Kent County Circuit Court Judge Christopher Yates underscores the importance of a COLFS provision in an employment contract between OtterBase, a Grand Rapids, MI-based staffing firm, and two of their former employees, Carrie Rogers and Emily Reed. Rogers and Reed had experience in the staffing services industry in southern California, and OtterBase wanted to expand its business to that area. In 2013, OtterBase entered into an employment contract with Rogers and Reed that included provisions restricting them from competing with OtterBase and soliciting OtterBase clients during and after the term of the contract. The contract included a COLFS provision stating that Michigan law governs the contract, and any claims between the parties could only be decided in Kent County Circuit Court. 

The contract ended badly in 2016. Contrary to the contract, Rogers and Reed started a new company in California that competed with OtterBase and apparently solicited OtterBase clients. OtterBase sued Rogers and Reed in Kent County Circuit Court, and they asked Judge Yates to throw out the suit on the basis that the COLFS provision was unenforceable.
At stake here was more than the inconvenience of Rogers and Reed having to come to Michigan to defend the lawsuit, but whether the non-compete and non-solicitation provisions were enforceable. Simply stated, Michigan law recognizes the validity of these restrictions (if carefully drafted), but California law does not. California law states that "any contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful provision, trade, or business of any kind" is void. So, if the Judge Yates upheld the COLFS provision, it was "game over" for Rogers and Reed. 

The criteria for the validity of COLFS provisions are well-established. Judge Yates reviewed them and determined that:
  • Michigan had a substantial relationship to the contracting parties because OtterBase is headquartered in Grand Rapids, and the purpose of the contract was to have Rogers and Reed extend its business to California.
  • OtterBase does business in several states, and it has a legitimate purpose in having a Michigan COLFS provision to avoid confronting a crazy quilt of laws that require different treatment of employees working in different states.
  • Rogers and Reed were free to negotiate the COLFS provision. 
  • Michigan public policy favors the enforcement of COLFS provisions. 
  • The COLFS provision may stand despite the fact that Michigan law recognizes restrictive covenants in employment contracts but California law does not. The two states' different views on that subject aren't enough to invalidate the COLFS provision.  
Do your contracts contain COLFS provisions that may save - or ruin - your day if you litigate with the other party? You should have your attorney carefully review your contracts for COLFS provisions and summarize them as part of your contracts database. You do have a contracts database, right? 

If you find this post worthwhile, please consider sharing it with your colleagues. The link to this blog is and my website is www.busklaw.comThanks! 


Popular posts from this blog

The BUSKLAW May Newsletter: Is There a Moral Imperative to Plain English? Part 1 - Examples

"The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed." 

Thus begins Stephen King's epic story of the gunslinger, Roland Deschain, and the popular Dark Tower series of novels describing his adventures. But King didn't have to write this sentence that way; he could have consulted with the typical lawyer, politician, or company PR department first. Had he done so, the sentence may have appeared so:

"The bad hombre who was dressed mostly in dark clothing and running fast across an arid land was pursued by a multi-armed, extremely dangerous, and notorious vigilante."
The difference in these two sentences is clear. King's concise short sentence creates an image that grabs the reader's attention and raises provocative questions. Who is the man in black? Who is the gunslinger? Why is he after the man in black? But the Bizarro World Stephen King sentence - with its ethnic slur, passive voice, ambiguity, suppositions, and superfluous adjectives …

A BUSKLAW Newsletter Aside: Links to My Michigan Bar Journal Plain-Language Articles

Since my retirement from in-house corporate law in 2014, I've written or co-written several articles about using plain-language in contracts for the Michigan Bar Journal. And a new article has recently appeared in the October 2017 issue. But those articles haven't been a lone endeavor in any sense; I've had several plain-language experts give me their input along the way:
Plain English Scholar and WMU-Cooley Law School Distinguished Professor Emeritus Joe Kimblewho invited me to write for the Journal to begin with and has since freely given me editorial advice that not only benefits the particular article du jour but also helps my legal writing generally. And a hat tip to Journal Editor Linda Novak who has put, editorially-speaking, the "frosting on the cake" before publication of these articles. Michael Braem, J.D., Contract Manager of the Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, who has co-authored some of the articles with me. Michael has also becom…

The BUSKLAW November Newsletter: Dead Turkeys and Deader Tort Damages

November is the month of Thanksgiving. And Thanksgiving for most folks means time with family and friends (better yet, family who are friends), an appropriate but modestly-priced wine, and a turkey. Turkeys should live their brief sojourn on this earth in relative peace before winding up on our table. But that was not to be for the poor fowls in the recent Kent County (MI) Circuit Court case of White Acres, LLC et al v. Shur Green Farms, LLC et al

The case involves a plethora of parties (hence the "et al"), all of whom were in the distribution chain of a biofuel called Lascadoil. Unlike its parent product, Lasalocid, Lascadoil is not an appropriate turkey-feed additive. (Does anything with "oil" in its name sound fit for human or animal consumption?) So when a bunch of turkeys died after eating feed tainted with Lascadoil, the lawsuits started flying; each party was sued by its downstream buyer who in turn sued its upstream seller. And numerous insurance companies…