There are two types of personal jurisdiction:

• General: as in the defendant’s activities are continuous and systematic, without any reference to any claim, still, court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
• Specific: if no systematic or continuous contact, a ‘minimum contact’ test is applied:
• Purposeful direction – Should be able to reasonably foresee being haled into court in the forum. E.g., a libeled article subject to jurisdiction. (Calder v. Jones, 465 US 793, 1984).
• Purposeful availment –Purposefully availed himself of the benefits of the State and privilege of doing business in the State. Modern commercial life that a substantial amount of business is transacted solely by mail and wire communications the need for physical presence within a State in which business is conducted.
• Stream of Commerce – Foreseeability analysis as in not whether the product might find its way into the forum, but that the defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum are such that the defendant ‘should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there’.
• Fundamental Fairness Issue: Five ‘fairness factors’:
• Inconvenience to the defendant of defending in the forum;
• Forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute;
• Plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief;
• Interstate judicial system’s interest in efficient resolution of interstate conflicts;
• Shared interest of the states in furthering substantive social politics.

* This is only the abdriged version of the extract of the article being used. For full extract, click here. Go on top.