Zapata Marine Service v. O/Y Finnlines, Ltd., 76-2646
| Citation | 571 F.2d 208 |
| Decision Date | 03 March 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-2646,76-2646 |
| Parties | ZAPATA MARINE SERVICE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. O/Y FINNLINES, LTD., and the M/V FINNTRADER, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
Joseph D. Cheavens, Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.
Gus A. Schill, Jr., E. D. Vickery, Houston, Tex., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Before THORNBERRY, AINSWORTH and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
This case presents a question of the interpretation of a forum-selection clause in an agreement negotiated between the owners of two ships after the vessels had been involved in a collision on the high seas. The District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed the case relying primarily on M/S BREMEN v. Zapata Offshore Company, 407 U.S. 1, 92 S.Ct. 1907, 32 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972). For the reasons set out below, we affirm that dismissal.
Zapata argues that this case is controlled by Keaty v. Freeport Indonesia, Inc., 503 F.2d 955 (5 Cir. 1974), which held that a clause directing that the parties "must submit to the jurisdiction of the court of New York" was not a mandatory forum selection clause. Keaty, however, teaches another principle which is equally forceful as a rule of interpretation that when a contract provision is subject to opposing, yet reasonable interpretation, an interpretation is preferred which operates more strongly against the party from whom the words proceeded. Id. at 957.
The district court found as a fact that the parties agreed to suit in Great Britain. That finding is not clearly erroneous. Zapata not only proposed the forum in a strongly-worded telegram following the sea accident, but it thereafter instigated litigation in the London courts. Now Zapata claims that it did not regard that jurisdiction as exclusive nor could FINNTRADER'S owners have so regarded it. We disagree. Whether we view this case from the vantage point of traditional contract analysis or from that of the purpose of forum selection clauses generally, we reach the same result. With respect to contract analysis, even if we were to assume that Zapata meant for its telegram to convey a proposal for non-exclusive jurisdiction, we have no reason to believe that FINNLINES either knew or had reason to know of that meaning. See 3 A. Corbin, Contracts § 537 (1960). With regard to the forum selection problem, we note that FINNTRADER'S owners had two choices when t...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
JJ Water Works, Inc. v. San Juan Towing & Marine Servs., Inc.
...be construed against the drafter only where it “is subject to opposing, yet reasonable interpretation.” Zapata Marine Serv. v. O/Y Finnlines, Ltd., 571 F.2d 208, 209 (5th Cir.1978). I reach the conclusion that the redelivery clause defeats SJT's counterclaim not because I construe it agains......
-
Jiangsu Hongyuan Pharm. Co. v. DI Global Logistics Inc.
...“an interpretation ... which operates more strongly against the party from whom the words proceeded. ” Zapata Marine Serv. v. O/Y Finnlines, Ltd. , 571 F.2d 208, 209 (5th Cir.1978) (emphasis added).In other words, as the drafter of the allegedly ambiguous provision, the clause must be const......
-
Wai v. Rainbow Holdings
...rule established by the Fifth Circuit in Keaty v. Freeport Indonesia, Inc., 503 F.2d 955 (5th Cir.1974) and Zapata Marine Service v. O/Y Finnlines, Ltd., 571 F.2d 208 (5th Cir.1978), `when a contract provision is subject to opposing, yet reasonable interpretations, an interpretation is pref......
-
Wellmore Coal Corp. v. Gates Learjet Corp.
...be drawn from the relative positions of the parties in the Mousseux case and the case at hand. See, e. g., Zapata Marine Service v. O/Y Finnlines, Ltd., 571 F.2d 208 (5th Cir. 1978). 5 The fact that two of defendant's witnesses are not residents of Arizona does not lend credence to plaintif......