The Standard Of ’Purposeful Availment’ In American Specific Jurisdiction

The "Due Process" clause has an important influence on the development of personal jurisdiction in American courts.After the ’International Shoe’(1945),the traditional classification of personal jurisdiction in the United States began to be impacted,and gradually evolved into ’specific jurisdiction’ and ’general jurisdiction’as the mainstream.The criterion of ’general jurisdiction’ was determined as the theory of ’essentially at home’ after case of DaImler Ag,Petitioner v.Barbara Bauman.On the other hand,the constitutionality of ’specific jurisdiction’ is based on the principle of ’minimal contact’.Compared with general jurisdiction,specific jurisdiction has relatively low requirements on the contacts between the parties and the state of the forum.Long arm jurisdiction is closely related to specific jurisdiction,but,in practice,the former is more applicable than the latter.The emergence of the ’purposeful availment’ standard is closely related to the principle of ’minimal contact’.After the principle of ’minimal contact’ is clearly established,the standard of ’purposeful availment’ has become an important basis for the American courts to exercise specific jurisdiction over the defendant.In the evolution history of ’purposeful availment’,the case of World-Wide Volkswagen Corp.v.Woodson reasonably explains the rationality of ’purposeful availment’ as the jurisdictional basis.In the case of Asahi Metal Industry Co.,Ltd.v.Superior Court of California,the judges with different opinions made a detailed argument on the basis of the determination of the ’purposeful availment’ standard.From the end of the 20 th century to the beginning of the 21 st century,with the extensional expansion of the ’purposeful availment’ standard.In the case of J.McIntyre Mach.,Ltd.v.Nicastro,the judges of court were divided on the attitude of the ’purposeful availment’ standard,which add uncertainty to the standard.The ’purposeful availment’ standard is based on the ’effect test’ in case of Calder v.Jones,and its actual extension includes ’purposeful availment’,’purposeful direction’ and ’slide-scale’.In these standards,the ’purposeful availment’ standard is mainly applied to cross-state(border)labor disputes and cross-state(border)business contract dispute.When the court invokes the standard of ’purposeful availment’,it usually takes the contractual relationship between the parties and the commercial activities of the parties in the forum state as the important basis.An employee in the forum state may be considered as an extension of an enterprise outside the forum state and,if permanently employed in the courthouse,the enterprisewill meet the requirements for ’purposeful availment’.’Purposeful direction’ is mainly applied to cross-state(border)infringement disputes.When invoking this standard,the court will pays attention to the subjective state of defendant who commit the tort and the predictability of the damage caused by the act.When the American court tries the Internet tort cases,it usually determines the ’interactivity’ and ’commercial nature’of the websites operated by enterprise according to the rule of ’sliding scale’,and then decides whether to exercise the specific jurisdiction over the parties concerned.Chinese-invested enterprises in the United Sates should fully understand the nature of the case before applying the standard of ’purposeful availment’ when responding to the lawsuit in the American court.In the case of cross-state(border)contract disputes,Chinese enterprises should emphasize view that they have only engaged in short-term commercial activities in the forum state when participating a action.In cross-state(border)tort disputes,Chinese enterprises should avoid citing internal behavior as the basis for circumvention of specific jurisdiction.In addition,if the enterprise does not use the website to conduct transactions with the local residents of forum state,or the court of appeal does not recognize the rule of the ’sliding scale’,it should be emphasized in the lawsuit that the corporate website is of no ’commercial nature’.