4 ms·

The key is that they were selling in State. If John Deere were to pull out of the state they could advertise all they want, and people could still purchase the

The key is that they were selling in State. If John Deere were to pull out of the state they could advertise all they want, and people could still purchase the tractors from out of state, but they wouldn't have to follow that, lol. I am not a lawyer, but I do work in public policy for the past 22 years. I don't see how this is enforceable should the company leave. A comparison is the purchase of a vehicle. In 21 states, the manufacture of a vehicle can sell directly to the consumer. In the rest of the states, the law says that a manufacture is for bidden from selling directly to consumers. Yet people buy cars and bring them across state lines, all the time, whether they purchased it from the manufacturer or a dealer. If the point of sale occurs outside of Colorado, and John Deere has no corporate presents in Colorado, then I don't see how this is applicable.

GavinMcG 3y ago
> I am not a lawyer Don't be so confident, then. I'm not either, but it doesn't take much looking around to see that the situation isn't as simple as corporate presence. A company can be subject to the state's jurisdiction for claims related to the contacts a company does have – and relatedness is not just a matter of directly causing harm or some other outcome. [0] What you pointed out actually demonstrates that point: even though manufacturers aren't selling directly to consumers, they're still selling there via distributors, and are still subject to product liability suits, etc. The distributor doesn't shield them, in other words. Here's what the Court said in Ford: > Specific jurisdiction is different: It covers defendants less intimately connected with a State, but only as to a narrower class of claims. The contacts needed for this kind of jurisdiction often go by the name “purposeful availment.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985). The defendant, we have said, must take “some act by which [it] purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State.” Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958). The contacts must be the defendant’s own choice and not “random, isolated, or fortuitous.” Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 774 (1984). They must show that the defendant deliberately “reached out beyond” its home—by, for example, “exploi[ting] a market” in the forum State or entering a contractual relationship centered there. Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 285 (2014) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Whether only advertising could be enough hasn't been definitively settled, but it certainly could count as "purposeful availment" whereby the company "reache[s] out beyond its home" and seeks to "exploi[t] a market" in the state. [0] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-7-1-4/ALDE_00013035/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-7-1...

GavinMcG 3y ago

> I am not a lawyer Don't be so confident, then. I'm not either, but it doesn't take much looking around to see that the situation isn't as simple as corporate presence. A company can be subject to the state's jurisdiction for claims related to the contacts a company does have – and relatedness is not just a matter of directly causing harm or some other outcome. [0] What you pointed out actually demonstrates that point: even though manufacturers aren't selling directly to consumers, they're still selling there via distributors, and are still subject to product liability suits, etc. The distributor doesn't shield them, in other words. Here's what the Court said in Ford: > Specific jurisdiction is different: It covers defendants less intimately connected with a State, but only as to a narrower class of claims. The contacts needed for this kind of jurisdiction often go by the name “purposeful availment.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985). The defendant, we have said, must take “some act by which [it] purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State.” Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958). The contacts must be the defendant’s own choice and not “random, isolated, or fortuitous.” Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 774 (1984). They must show that the defendant deliberately “reached out beyond” its home—by, for example, “exploi[ting] a market” in the forum State or entering a contractual relationship centered there. Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 285 (2014) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Whether only advertising could be enough hasn't been definitively settled, but it certainly could count as "purposeful availment" whereby the company "reache[s] out beyond its home" and seeks to "exploi[t] a market" in the state. [0] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-7-1-4/ALDE_00013035/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-7-1...