In this first situation, I do understand that California Courts have jurisdiction to decide the tort demand filed by the costumer who had bought the motor cycle in California. Under thedoctrine of the minimum-contacts, it is necessary that the defendants have a link with the state of the forum, in order to allow the State Court to decide the case. In the present situation, the accident,which caused injuries to the plaintiff, has happened in California. It is fair to mention that the vehicle was bought in California, where Power Bike strongly advertises its motor bikes. In other words,Power Bike indeed aim that market. Therefore, there is a more than sufficient connection between the state of California and Power Bike. In the same way, Traction Tyres was fully advised that themotor cycles made with its raw material would be sold in California. Thus, Traction Tyres implicitly aims that market and agrees that its tyres will supply motor cycles sold in California in a largescale.
Finally, it would be arguable that since Volvex had not known that its valves would supply motor bikes sold in California, the Courts of this state would not have jurisdiction to decide the tortclaim. Moreover, it could be raised that the damage caused by Volvex to Traction was not caused in California, or the damage does not have any relation with California. However, in the present case,Traction Tyres, who bought Volvex valves, had known that the tyres made with the valves would be sold in California. In this sense, a small quantity of precaution from Volvex, consisting in askingTraction Tyres where its products would be sold, could have made Volvex know the destination of the valves. So, if there is no strong evidence that Volvex could not have known the destination of thevalves, I do understand that California courts have full jurisdiction to decide the case.
The English Law gives jurisdiction to the English Courts to decide claims in tort when the damage was...