Tuncia County hired Williamson Pounders Architects (WPA), a Tennessee company, to design and supervise construction of a river-front park. A year later, WPA met with Tunica County personnel who wanted to increase the size of the project from $18 million to $22 million. The County Administrator orally approved the increase.
Later, bills were submitted for extra work done, but Tunica County refused to pay because the County Board of Supervisors had not approved the extra expenses as would be indicated in the minutes of a Board meeting. WPA sued the County in federal court in Mississippi for breach of contract.
The original contract contained a choice-of-law provision. It stated that Tennessee law would govern any dispute. Tunica County contended that Mississippi law should govern the dispute and the district court agreed and dismissed the suit. WPA appealed.

1. The architects probably believed the County Administrator had authority to request an expansion of the project. How could they have avoided the problem that arose?
2. Why was this case in federal court instead of in state court?