In Jardim v Overley, the Appellate Division held that a one time transaction involving the sale of a "vintage car" arising from an internet posting by a California seller did not constitute "minimum contacts" providing jurisdiction in New Jersey when the buyer discovered the car to be in poor condition upon arrival. Plaintiff had an e-mail exchange with the seller making a counter offer to buy the convertible, and plaintiff and a business associate each had a telephone discussion with the seller before the transaction was completed. Plaintiff sent the deposit through PayPal.com.

Plaintiff or his associate also arranged for shipping the car to New Jersey and for financing by a New Jersey credit union which paid for the car after receiving title, which was transferred in California.

The parties agreed there was no "general" jurisdiction in New Jersey. After summarizing the law regarding "specific" jurisdiction, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court in finding the absence of jurisdiction based on the contacts with New Jersey and the absence of any targeting of the posting for sale here. The dismissal of the complaint was without prejudice to re-filing in California.

Jardim recognizes that the US Supreme Court has made clear that specific jurisdiction requires "a connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue." In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co, v Superior Court of California (2017), the Court held that doing business in a state does not give rise to long arm jurisdiction in that State's courts unless the suit relates to the "defendant's contacts with the forum." In Bristol-Myers Squibb specific jurisdiction over the claims of nonresident plaintiffs was found lacking because defendant's general business activities in California had no relation with the claims of the nonresidents plaintiffs' product liability claims. There simply was no "connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue." The nonresident plaintiffs had not even alleged that they obtained or took the prescription drug in California.

In Jardim, the Appellate Division applied the principle of Bristol Myers-Squibb and distinguished our Supreme Court's opinion in Lebel v Everglades Marina, Inc., 115 NJ 317 (1989), in which the defendant purposely directed its sales activities towards plaintiff in New Jersey, and numerous communications were involved. In Lebel, traditional concepts of minimal contacts, based on the notions of fair play and substantial justice, warranted jurisdiction.

Consistent with the recent US Supreme Court precedent, Jardim holds that a transaction based on a single posting on the internet, at least when not targeted to a particular purchaser or a potential purchaser in a single state, does not give rise to jurisdiction in any state where the ultimate purchaser resides. The defendant did not "purposefully avail" himself of the New Jersey market and there were no "minimum contacts" sufficient to warrant jurisdiction.

We agree with the rationale and holding in Jardim. But as the first New Jersey case on a developing and recurring subject, we should not feel complacent that sales of items posted on the internet may not in other factual settings create jurisdiction here or that the postings by New Jersey residents won't be subject to litigation in other states. We look forward to future cases, based on other facts, for guidance as the law evolves.