Chateau des Charmes Wines Ltd., a Canadian Company, bought special corks for its wine from Sabate USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Sabate France. The corks were supposed to not cause wines to be spoiled by “cork taint,” a distasteful flavor that some corks produce. The agreement was made over the phone, and the parties agreed on price, quantity, and shipping and payment terms. Later, Chateau placed a second order on the same terms. The corks were sent in 11 shipments with an invoice preceding or following each shipment. 

On the front of each invoice was the statement in French: “Any dispute arising under the present contract is under the sole jurisdiction of the Court of Commerce of the City of Perpignan.” Several terms were also printed in French on the back, “[A]ny disputes arising out of this agreement shall be brought before the court with jurisdiction to try the matter in the judicial district where Seller’s registered office is located.” When Chateau’s wines developed cork taint, it sued Sabate in California where the subsidiary is headquartered. Sabate argued the case could not be tried there. Is that correct? Why?