Fancy Frames Bicycles, Inc., is a small company in Wisconsin that manufactures custom high-end bicycle frames for sale to consumer cyclists. It has a single office/plant, and it maintains a website with information about its products and contact information but no means for ordering products online. Morton, a Minnesota resident, runs a similar custom bicycle-frame-making shop that is successful but growing increasingly stagnant. After visiting the Fancy Frames site, he is impressed. He contacts Fancy Frames about closing his business and becoming a local Fancy Frames manufacturer and distributor. Fancy Frames is intrigued by the idea, and the parties exchange numerous e-mails for over a year discussing the proposed business relationship. Finally Fancy Frames writes to Morton that the deal is a go and the papers will be sent to him immediately. Morton closes his business and awaits the papers. When they arrive, Morton learns that the deal provides him with a salary but has left out the commission that the e-mails had promised. He sues Fancy Frames in Minnesota district court. Will the court have personal jurisdiction over Fancy Frames? What theory or theories might the court examine in determining personal jurisdiction?