Insightful Solutions Company is a Wisconsin-based company that sells designer eye glassesover the internet to customers in the United States,Canada and Europe.During the current year, Insightful Solutions records $10,000,000 in revenue.Minnesota customers account for $10,000 of the total revenue recorded during the current year. A significant portion of the company's sales are to customers residing in Canada.On average, each customer purchases $1,000 of goods from the web site. However, the average Minnesota customer spends $100.

To attract customers, Insightful Solutions advertises over the internet and in local newspapers. The majority of the company's newspaper ads are in Wisconsinnewspapers.Due to its unique web site, Insightful Solutionshas an excellent reputation for customer satisfaction. The company's web site allows customers to photograph their faces wearing the eye glassessold on the online site. The web site also offers to ship eye glassesanywhere in the U.S. at no additional cost and allowscustomers to return defective eye glasseswithin a 30-day period.

Unhappy with her contact lenses, Sandy Sorenson decides to order glasses using Insightful's web site after reading an online ad about Insightful Solutions. Sandy, a Minnesota resident, uses the interactive feature of the web site to view the glasses on her face. After spending 30 minutes"trying" on glasses with the web site, Sandy places an online order with Insightful Solutions for a $100 pair of eye glasses.

The eye glasses arrive at Sandy's home in Minnesota the following week. Later that week, Sandy returns the purchased eye glasses to Insightful Solutions and requests a refund, claiming that the eye glasses are defective since the glasses irritate her face. Insightful Solutionsrefuses to refund Sandy's money.Sandy sues Insightful Solutions in a Minnesota state court. Insightful Solutions files a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

1.Can the Minnesota court exercise personal jurisdiction over Insightful Solutions Company? Why or why not? Fully explain your answer using the IRAC approach (state the issue, rule of law, apply the rule(s) to the facts in the case and state your conclusion).

2.Suggest one fact that is not stated in the case (or alter one stated fact) and explain why your suggested fact/altered fact would be relevant in deciding whether the state of Minnesota should be able to exercise personal jurisdiction over Insightful Solutions Company.Be creative!

3.Should Insightful Solutions haveincluded amandatory arbitration clause on its web site that required Sandy to agree to arbitrate all disputes? Why or why not?