Case Study: Shell V. R.W. Sturge

Solution Preview

Step 1

1. Title and Citation
Shell V. R.W. Sturge Ltd.
No. C-1-93-802.
2. Facts of the Case
West Shell and Hauck are the representatives for the case related to investors who invested the money in Lloyds. The investor wanted to set aside the contract for investment in Lloyds. Their contention was that the Ohio State Securities law had been violated. The point Shell and Hauck made was that Lloyds had violated the Ohio securities law by selling unregistered and non-exempt securities. They asked the court to set aside the contract and be returned to the original positions. They offered to return any benefits by way of profits that they had earned from the investments. Shell and Hauck clearly showed that the defenders of the case had clearly violated the law that governed public investment. Shell and Hauck claimed that offering securities that were not recognized can harm them. The argument of Shell and Hauck was that even though they had earned profits during the past two years, they apprehend incurring heavy losses in the couple of years. Further, they claimed that they did not know at the time of investment if the securities were recognized or not. Shell and Hauck under Section 12 (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures decided to file a suit. The civil court accepted the suit for hearing. However, both the agreements had a forum selection clause and a choice of law clause. These agreements clearly stated that English courts have exclusive jurisdiction and the agreement will take place according to the English law.
Now according to Shell and Hauck the selection of the forum for the case makes them away from their right. Since their right was in accordance with the Ohio law. Shell and Hauck claimed that their rights under the Ohio law were civil rights.
R.W. Sturge, LTD filed a motion to dismiss the case because it was an improper venue. The court granted the motion of R.W. Sturge, LTD. ...