Reference no: EM13469865

Assume that Froogle, Inc. is a corporation with its principal place of business in California. Mary, a proprietor of a small business in Vermont that specializes in the manufacture and sale of ski equipment to Vermont ski resorts, signs a contract with Froogle that allows Mary's business to advertise on Froogle's internet search engine. Mary has never been to California and does not visit California when dealing with Froogle. Instead, all of her business with Froogle is done either online or via telephone. Mary, of course, knows that Froogle has its principle place of business in California.

Two months into the business relationship, Froogle complains that Mary has violated the agreement between the parties. Froogle files a lawsuit against Mary in Superior Court for the County of Monterey in Salinas, California. Mary claims that the California court has no personal jurisdiction over her, while Froogle claims that the state does have jurisdiction over her because she knowingly did business with a California company. Assume that there is no applicable possibility of quasi in rem jurisdiction. Please write an IAC-style essay explaining whether California is likely to have personal jurisdiction over Mary.