Beco Corp. v. Roberts & Sons Construction Co.

I dissent from Part I of the majority opinion because it incorrectly analyzes the requisite constitutional minimum contacts necessary to establish jurisdiction in Idaho courts. Regarding Part II, even if the Idaho district court did have jurisdiction over the defendant Roberts & Sons, the additional effort required by Beco to haul the topsoil through the muddy terrain was not “extra work” under the subcontract. There are several provisions of the subcon*713tract which prohibit payment of additional sums beyond that contracted to be paid by Roberts under the subcontract. The jurisdictional…