CARFAX, Inc. v. Browning

Summary

The Alabama Supreme Court dismissed Carfax's interlocutory appeal after determining that permission to appeal under Rule 5 had been improvidently granted. The case concerned the enforceability of an outbound forum-selection clause in an Internet contract and whether inconvenience and litigation expense would effectively deprive the consumer of his day in court.

Holdings

1. Neither certified question constituted a controlling question of law because the parties did not dispute that Internet contracts may be binding and enforceable, and neither party disputed that more than mere inconvenience or impracticability is required to invalidate an outbound forum-selection clause.
2. The appeal was dismissed because the Supreme Court's permission to appeal had been improvidently granted and the dispositive merits question was not properly before the court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the certified questions concerning the enforceability of an Internet-based forum-selection clause and whether inconvenience or impracticability can render such a clause unconscionable were controlling questions of law appropriate for a Rule 5 permissive appeal.
2. Whether the Supreme Court of Alabama should reach the merits of whether the trial court correctly applied the seriously inconvenient-forum standard.

Disposition

dismissed