Legal Analysis: Personal Jurisdiction in Mike vs. Andy's Auctions Case

This assignment analyzes a case involving a dispute over a contract for the sale of motorcycles between Mike, a Georgia-based shop owner, and Andy’s Auctions, Inc., an Illinois corporation. The central issue is whether the Illinois court has personal jurisdiction over Mike, who had no physical presence in Illinois and conducted all business transactions online or via phone. The analysis examines the principles of personal jurisdiction, including in personam jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction, and quasi in rem jurisdiction, as well as the tests for determining jurisdiction, such as territoriality, the contacts test, and the overall reasonableness factor. The assignment applies these principles to the facts, considering whether Mike had sufficient contacts with Illinois to justify jurisdiction, and whether exercising jurisdiction would violate principles of fair play and substantial justice. The analysis references key legal precedents, including International Shoe Co. v. Washington, Worldwide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, and Pennoyar v. Neff, to support its conclusions that the Illinois court likely does not have personal jurisdiction over Mike.

Running head: PERSONAL JURISDICTION
Personal Jurisdiction
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

2PERSONAL JURISDICTION
Issue
The issue is to determine whether the state of Illinois is likely to have a personal
jurisdiction over Mike.
Rule
Various factors and test are required for determining the personal jurisdiction of a court.
In the USA personal jurisdiction can be of three types: In Personam jurisdiction, In Rem
jurisdiction and Quasi In Rem jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction refers to the power of the court
for bringing people into its adjudicative ambit for enforcing a judgement upon such person. For
determining personal jurisdiction, the courts make use of different factors and tests, differing
from state to state. The tests and the factors include:
a) Territoriality:
The test of territoriality states that personal jurisdiction can only be exercised if the defendant
it is situated in the place where the suit has been filed. Therefore the defendant is to be served as
per the legal procedure of the state where he has been seized.
b) Contacts test
The Supreme Court of the United State has refined this test and has held that it is unfair for a
court to assess a party who has negligible contact with the state which holds the jurisdiction
office case. The case of International Shoe company v Washington 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) in
1945 stated that the provisions of jurisdiction do not wish to affect the traditional notions of
sustainable justice and fair play.
c) General and Specific jurisdiction

3PERSONAL JURISDICTION
General jurisdiction test follows the principle that anyone can be sued by any Court
irrespective of the fact that whether the defendant has any contact with the prosecuting state.
Specific jurisdiction refers to the contacts of the defendant with the forum state being limited.
It is stated that the defendant avails the privilege of his conduct in the forum state on purpose,
thereby enjoying the benefits and the protection of the laws of such forum state.
d) Overall jurisdiction factor
The overall reasonableness jurisdiction factor claims that a traditional notion of fair play and
restoration of Justice should be a considering factors along with su other aspects like burden of
the defendant for defending the specific forum, the specific forum’s interest on the case and the
interest of the plaintiff pertaining to the relief.
e) Stream of commerce
The stream of commerce factor is mainly used in case of product liability where personal
jurisdiction is asserted on the basis of a company’s delivery of products into the stream of
commerce, expecting that consumers will purchase such products streamed in a different forum
and in such case the action of the defendant must be voluntary towards such forum. In
Worldwide Volkswagen corporation v Woodson 444 U.S. 286 (1980) the Supreme Court of the
United States held that when products have been brought from one jurisdiction to another by way
of the implied contract between the consumer and plaintiff, then such contact of the
consumer/defendant with the forum in question cannot be considered as voluntary or directed on
purpose.

4PERSONAL JURISDICTION
In the case of Pennoyar v Neff 95 U.S. 714 the Supreme Court of the United States held that
each state surrendered some power to the Federal government, except for the powers of
jurisdiction over the affairs of people and property falling within its ambit.
Application
In the given case Mike purchased 25 used motorcycles from Andy’s Auctions Inc. The
company called Andy’s Auctions Inc. had its principle place of business operation in Illinois and
Mike was aware of it even though he himself never visited Illinois and all the business
transactions were carried out via online communication or through telephonic conversation. 5 out
of the 25 motorcycle were not according to the standards of bike that Mike had specifically
mentioned to Andy’s Auctions Inc. The agreement between Mike and Andy’s Auctions Inc. was
for 25 used motorcycle which were in excellent condition and therefore a damaged bike send by
the company constitutes a breach of contract. Thinking it to be a breach, Mike did not pay for the
5 damaged bikes to Andy’s Auctions Inc. to which the company e filed a legal suit against Mike
in the Illinois Court.
It is argued by Mike that the Illinois Court had no personal jurisdiction over him while
the company Andy’s Auctions Inc. put forwarded the fact that might had knowingly enter into
the contract that the companies main business operation was held in Illinois and therefore any
dispute arising with the company would be addressed by the court of Illinois.
Applying the test and factors of personal jurisdiction under the US law, the defendant in
this case lacks contact with the court of Illinois and therefore it would be unfair for such forum to
assess the conduct of Mike pertaining to this case. The overall reasonable Ness factor also claims
that Mick should not be tried by the Illinois Court for it would not be a restoration of Justice and

5PERSONAL JURISDICTION
fair play, and hence the defendant would be deprived of his right to justice. The stream of
commerce factor of the personal jurisdiction test also states that the purchase of a product
between the two parties to the contract do not mean that the defendant shall be brought before
the court of action of the plaintiff's state. In Worldwide Volkswagen corporation v Woodson 444
U.S. 286 (1980) the Supreme Court of the United States held that when products have been
brought from one jurisdiction to another by way of the implied contract between the consumer
and plaintiff, then such contact of the consumer/defendant with the forum in question cannot be
considered as voluntary or directed on purpose.
Conclusion
Therefore it could be stated that it would be unfair to try Mike’s case by a jurisdiction
which has no idea about Mick’s situation and therefore it can be considered that the court of
Illinois do not hold a jurisdiction over Mick just because he purchased the motorcycles from
Andy’s Auctions Inc.

6PERSONAL JURISDICTION
References
International Shoe company v Washington 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945)
Pennoyar v Neff 95 U.S. 714
Worldwide Volkswagen corporation v Woodson 444 U.S. 286 (1980)