# BP Chemicals Ltd. v. Formosa Chemical & Fibre Corp.

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · October 3, 2000 · 229 F.3d 254

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9816208

## Case

- **Full name:** BP CHEMICALS LTD., (An English Corporation) v. FORMOSA CHEMICAL & FIBRE CORPORATION, (A Taiwanese Corporation); Joseph Oat Corporation (A Pennsylvania Corporation). Formosa Chemical & Fibre Corporation, Appellant in Nos. 98-5468 and 99-5423 Joseph Oat Corporation, Appellant in Nos. 98-5469 and 99-5451; BP Chemicals Ltd. (An English Corporation), Appellant in No. 99-5452 v. Formosa Chemical & Fibre Corporation (A Taiwanese Corporation); Joseph Oat Corporation (A Pennsylvania Corporation)
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** October 3, 2000
- **Citations:** 229 F.3d 254; 56 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1321; 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 24789
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Alito
- **Judges:** Alito, Stapleton, Pollak
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9816208

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the “fact that [the contracts at issue between a Taiwanese and New Jersey company] were for a one-time purchase of equipment that was to be shipped to Taiwan and were solicited and negotiated through the Taiwanese agents of the U.S. vendors seem[ed] . . . to negat…
- holding that the existence of one-time purchase contracts with United States companies and correspondence surrounding those contracts did not show that the foreign defendant purposefully availed itself of the forum, especially where the transaction itself had predominant roots…

## Opinion text

ALITO, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the judgment:
Except with respect to the comments below, writing separately in this case would not serve a useful purpose. I do not join part IIIB of the opinion of the Court. Both FCFC and JOC merely mentioned the choice-of-law issue in passing in their briefs. See FCFC Br. At 41, 50 n. 7; JOC Br. At 17. “ ‘[A] passing reference to an issue ... will not suffice to bring that issue before this Court.’ ” Laborers’ Int’l Union of N. Am. v. Foster Wheeler Corp., 26 F.3d 375, 398 (3d Cir.1994) (citation omitted) (ellipsis in original). I would hold that no choice-of-law issue is properly before the Court in this appeal. Without full briefing from the parties, I am unwilling to join the Court’s novel application of New Jersey choice-of-law principles.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9816208. Public record. Not legal advice.