involving forum selection clause in passenger ticket
How later courts described this case
- involving forum selection clause in passenger ticket
- refusing to enforce additional terms after sale
- reliance on affidavit should have converted dismissal motion into one for summary judgment
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Ameral v. Intrepid Travel Party, Ltd., 128 F. Supp. 3d 382 (2015)
Plaintiff cites Casavant v. Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., 63 Mass.App.Ct. 785, 798, 829 N.E.2d 1171 (2005), but that case is distinguishable.
Distinguished by Oltman v. Holland America Line USA, Inc., 163 Wash. 2d 236 (2008)
¶41 Casavant v. Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., 63 Mass. App. Ct. 785, 829 N.E.2d 1171 (2005), on which the Oltmans heavily rely, is distinguishable.
Distinguished by Oltman v. Holland America Line USA, Inc., 148 P.3d 1050 (2006)
Casavant is distinguishable.
Distinguished by Oltman v. Holland America Line USA, Inc., 136 Wash. App. 110 (2006)
Casavant is distinguishable.
The opinion
Brown, J.
(concurring). The panel became aware at oral argument (and made it known) of the situation that was causing Norwegian’s counsel much “embarrassment.” (See note 9, majority opinion, ante.) Notwithstanding the court’s suggestion that counsel would be well advised to attempt to settle this matter amicably, rather than pursue it further in the courts, no post-appellate action was sought or even requested (as far as can be discerned from the record). Cf. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Nippon Sanso K.K., 331 F.3d 153, 163 (1st Cir. 2003) (Boudin, C.J.) (“This case is about money, but only money, and should have been settled . . .”). Thus, Norwegian’s counsel would have been well advised to adhere to the following admonition: “Litigation should be a last resort, not the first option.” Petricca Constr. Co. v. Commonwealth, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 392, 402 (1994) (Brown J., concurring). “Rational thought and wise counseling are available at far less expense!.]” 1 Ibid. And, I might add, much less professional embarrassment.
This is not a new concern, for one need only look to the timeless words of Chief Justice Stone, given in an address in 1934, exhorting members of the bar to honor their overarching duties as officers of the court in the course of their representation of business entities. Stone, The Public Influence of the Bar, 48 Harv. L. Rev. 1 (1934).