Also known as: purposeful contact · purposeful availment
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Contacts by a nonresident defendant with a forum state that are deliberately directed toward the forum and invoke its benefits and protections. Such contacts satisfy the purposeful-availment prong of the specific-jurisdiction test when the claim arises out of or relates to them and the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable.
Premier Manufacturing sold a component to a wholesaler in State X. A consumer later purchased the finished product in State X and drove it to State Y, where it malfunctioned and caused injury. Premier had never marketed, sold, or shipped goods into State Y. The State Y court lacks personal jurisdiction because Premier's only connection is the unilateral act of the consumer bringing the product into the state.
Pulse Media operated a subscription-based website that accepted payments and delivered content to residents of State A. The company actively promoted its service to State A users through targeted advertisements and provided forum-specific login features. A State A subscriber sued for breach of contract. The website's interactive features directed at State A residents constitute purposeful contacts supporting specific jurisdiction.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Patriot Insurance purchased valve assemblies from Asahi in Japan for use in tires sold nationwide. Asahi knew some tires would reach California but took no steps to market or distribute products there. A California plaintiff injured by a defective tire sued Asahi. Asahi's attenuated awareness of possible resale does not amount to purposeful contacts with California.
Paula Pierce owned shares in a Delaware corporation but never attended meetings or conducted business in Delaware. A shareholder derivative suit was filed in Delaware concerning corporate mismanagement occurring elsewhere. Pierce's mere ownership of stock does not create purposeful contacts with Delaware sufficient for personal jurisdiction.
Daimler AG maintained a U.S. subsidiary that sold vehicles in California. The plaintiffs, injured abroad, sued Daimler in California for events unrelated to any California sales. Daimler's lack of any purposeful contacts with California directed at the foreign claims defeats specific jurisdiction.
Burger King, headquartered in Florida, negotiated a long-term franchise agreement with a Michigan resident through repeated calls and mail directed to Miami. The agreement required all payments and performance obligations to be fulfilled in Florida. When the franchisee breached, Burger King sued in Florida. The franchisee's deliberate negotiation and acceptance of a Florida-centered relationship created purposeful contacts supporting jurisdiction there.
Purposeful contacts require the defendant to have deliberately directed activities at the forum state and invoked its benefits and protections. Foreseeability alone that a product sold elsewhere might later enter the forum is insufficient, as the defendant must have purposefully availed itself of the forum market or laws.
Yes, when the communications are part of a sustained course of dealing that targets the forum and creates a substantial connection, such as repeated contract negotiations or performance obligations centered in the forum. Isolated or plaintiff-initiated contacts do not suffice.
Yes, prior co-residence with the child in the forum for a substantial period supplies a statutory basis for personal jurisdiction in interstate child-support proceedings because the contact is directly related to the support claim.
…with the State. Their decision to incorporate in Delaware was a matter of corporate law convenience and did not constitute purposeful availment of the privilege of conducting activities in Delaware. B The quasi in rem theory is equally unavailing. Under this theory, the Delaware courts asserted jurisdiction because the suit was…