Very true George...What you are talking about is a choice of forum clause in a contract. Without it the defendant abstractor would normally be sued in the state in which he resides. However, the parties to the contract are free to alter that forum. They are free to select whichever state they feel is best for the litigation. Generally the residence of one party or the other is what gives the court jurisdiction to hear the case. Consequently, the choice of forum would most likely be limited to the state in which one or the other resided.

They are also free to select whatever state's law will govern the validity and performance of the contract through a choice of law clause. They may  select the law of either the plaintiff's or the defendant's residence or even the law of a third state in which neither resides.

Both choice of forum and choice of law provisions in a contract are very popular in collection cases in which interest on delinquent accounts is sought. Very often the plaintiff will select the law of a state that permits higher rates of interest in order to avoid the defendant's defense of usury. In Connecticut usurious interest rates make both the principal debt and the interest uncollectable.

I had a case recently in which the choice of law was that of Massachusetts, but there was no choice of forum in the contract. So although Massachusetts law governed the contract, the forum was here in Connecticut where the defendant resided. Apparently the defense attorney had not read the contract very carefully, and asserted a counterclaim under Connecticut's unfair trade practices statute. I was able to pull the rug out from under him at the last minute by arguing that his client had waived the right to recovery under Connecticut law when he chose Massachusetts law in the contract. It worked. He should have pleaded the Massachusetts equivalent of unfair trade practices, but failed to do so, nor did he amend his counterclaim to plead the Massachusetts law.