JETSTREAM INTERNATIONAL, LLC
v.
STUDENT TRAVEL SERVICES, LLC, ETC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A contractual choice-of-law provision is presumptively valid and will be enforced unless applying the chosen jurisdiction's law would contravene a strong public policy of Florida.
[1] A contractual choice-of-law provision is presumptively valid and enforceable unless application of the chosen jurisdiction's law would contravene a strong public policy o…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“An agreement between parties to be bound by the substantive laws of another jurisdiction is presumptively valid, and this Court will enforce a choice-of-law provision unless applying the chosen forum's law would contravene a strong public policy of this State.”
Court's statement of governing law regarding choice-of-law provisions
Jetstream International and others appealed a lower court judgment in a dispute involving Student Travel Services. The parties had agreed to be bound …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Presumption Of Validity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Se. Floating Docks, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 82 So. 3d 73, 80 (Fla. 2012) (“An agreement between parties to be bound by the substantive laws of another jurisdiction is presumptively valid, and this Court will enforce a choice-of-law provision unless applying the chosen forum’s law would contravene a strong public policy of this State.”); Burroughs Corp. v. Suntogs of Miami, Inc., 472 So. 2d 1166, 1169 (Fla. 1985) (concluding the contractual provision applying another state’s law regarding the limitations period was not contrary to a strong public policy); see also Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Se. Floating Docks, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 82 So. 3d 73 (Fla. 2012)
- Burroughs Corp. v. Suntogs OF Miami, Inc., 472 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 1985)