Enforcement of Forum Selection Clauses

Connecticut has adopted Article 5 of the Uniform Commercial Code (Letters of Credit), which states that ""the liability of an issuer, nominated person or adviser for action or omission is governed by the law of the jurisdiction chosen by an agreement in the form of a record signed or otherwise authenticated by the affected parties or by a provision in the person's letter of credit, confirmation or other undertaking. The jurisdiction whose law is chosen need not bear any relation to the transaction. (C.G.S.A. § 42a-5-116)

Article 2A of the UCC states that a choice-of-law term in a consumer lease contract is not enforceable if the law chosen is that of a jurisdiction other than one in which the lessee resides at the time the lease agreement becomes enforceable or within thirty days thereafter or in which the goods are to be used. (C.G.S.A. § 42a-2A-106)

Under Connecticut law, a forum selection clause conferring jurisdiction in one forum will not be interpreted as excluding jurisdiction elsewhere unless it contains specific language of exclusion. Friedman v. Jamison Business Systems, Inc., 2002 WL 442286 (Conn. Super. 2002). Connecticut courts have upheld the clear distinction between permissive forum-selection clauses and mandatory clauses, which require a clear indication of exclusivity.

Connecticut courts have also determined that a plaintiff's choice of forum should be afforded presumptive validity. See IDV North America, Inc. v. Illva Saronno, 1999 WL 773961 (Conn. Super. 1999). Accordingly, when weighing considerations of alternate judicial forums, a plantiff's choice of a Connecticut forum has been characterized as a ""thumb of significant proportions on the scales of justice."" Betansky v. Opcon Assoc., Inc., 24 Conn. L. Rptr. 37 (Conn. Super. 1999).

Finally, Connecticut courts have generally upheld contractual provisions waiving a party's right to object to jurisdiction and venue. See Friedman v. Jamison Business Systems, Inc., 2002 WL 442286.