Evian Waters of France, Inc., a New York corporation, was an importer of natural spring water from France. Evian contracted in 1987 with Valley Juice Limited, of Boston, Massachusetts to become Evian’s exclusive New England distributor. Valley came to believe that Evian was violating its exclusivity rights in New England and filed breach of contract and other claims in a suit it filed in Massachusetts state court. Evian, believing that Valley had not paid it for contract water it had delivered, also filed suit in Connecticut. Both suits were removed to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, and the two suits were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The case was tried to a jury, which found in favor of Evian. Valley appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Before reviewing the appellant’s claims, the appeals court had to determine what state’s law applied when two suits, which were initially filed in different states, were consolidated for trial, as in this case. Evian argued that a provision in its agreement with Valley provided that New York law should apply. Valley contended that if the states’ laws conflict, Massachusetts law should apply. How should the court of appeals resolve this dispute?