Also known as: purposefully avail · purposeful availment · purposefully availed
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A requirement in the minimum contacts analysis for specific personal jurisdiction that the defendant have taken deliberate action directed toward the forum state. The action must invoke the benefits and protections of the forum's laws rather than result from the unilateral conduct of the plaintiff or a third party. This element ensures that the defendant could reasonably anticipate being haled into court in the forum.
Patrick Phan, a resident of State X, sold equipment to a buyer who later moved the equipment to State Y without any direction from Phan. When the buyer sued Phan in State Y over a defect, the court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because Phan's only connection to State Y arose from the buyer's independent decision. Phan had taken no steps to serve the State Y market or invoke its laws.
Premier Manufacturing sold components exclusively to a wholesaler in State X. A retailer later resold one component to a consumer in State Y, where it caused injury. When the consumer sued Premier in State Y, the court granted dismissal because Premier had never marketed, contracted, or directed any activity toward State Y itself.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Priscilla Parks, a franchisee in State Y, negotiated a multi-year agreement with a franchisor through repeated calls and payments directed to the franchisor's State Y headquarters. When the franchisor later sued Parks in State Y for breach, the court upheld jurisdiction because Parks had deliberately reached into State Y to obtain ongoing commercial benefits under its laws.
Preston Pratt, a resident of State X, agreed that his child could live with the other parent in State Y during the school year. When the other parent later sought child support in State Y, the court refused to exercise jurisdiction over Pratt because his limited consent did not constitute deliberate engagement with State Y's market or legal system.
Pioneer Energy operated a website that accepted reservations, displayed rates, and provided driving directions specifically for residents of State Y. When a State Y customer sued over a booking dispute, the court found jurisdiction proper because the site deliberately served and interacted with the State Y market.
Progressive Healthcare manufactured tires sold only through distributors in State X. A set of tires reached State Y through an independent purchaser and caused an accident there. When injured parties sued in State Y, the court dismissed because Progressive had never directed sales, marketing, or other activity at the State Y market.
Yes. A publisher that consistently sells issues and accepts advertising revenue in the forum state deliberately exploits that market and can reasonably anticipate suit there for libel arising from its content.
Supporting sources
No. Mere awareness that a product might enter the forum through an independent distributor does not constitute purposeful availment when the manufacturer sells exclusively to an out-of-state intermediary and takes no steps to target the forum market.
Supporting sources
No. A contract with a resident plaintiff is insufficient by itself. The defendant must engage in additional deliberate targeting of the forum, such as repeated negotiations, payments, or performance directed at the forum state.
Supporting sources
Yes when they are extensive, ongoing, and directed specifically at the forum plaintiff over a sustained period. Such repeated virtual contacts can demonstrate deliberate engagement with the forum sufficient for jurisdiction over claims arising from the collaboration.
Supporting sources
…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…