In 1967, Zapata, a Houston-based corporation, entered into a contract with Unterweser, a German corporation, to tow Zapata's drilling rig from Louisiana to Ravenna, Italy. The contract the parties signed contained the clause "Any dispute arising must be heard before the London Court of Justice." During a storm, the rig was damaged, and Zapata instructed Unterweser's tug, the Bremen, to tow instead to Tampa, Florida, the nearest
port. Immediately thereafter, Zapata filed suit in federal district court in Tampa, Florida, on the basis of admiralty jurisdiction, seeking $3,500,000 damages in personam against Unterweser and in rem against the Bremen. Unterweser moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction on the basis of the forum selection clause and forum non conveniens. Unterweser sought a stay of action pending resolution in the London Court of Justice.
The U.S. District Court and Court of Appeals denied the motion to stay, thus allowing the case to proceed in U.S. court despite the forum selection clause. Unterweser filed a petition of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.
What was the Court's holding with respect to the general enforceability of forum selection clauses?