WPCD' 2& ZB}!HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSXx6X@QX@SHELL TITLE PAGE FOR OPINIONS AND ORDERS   a1Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)$ a2Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)/ 2X2a3Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a): a4Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)E a5Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)P   a6Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)[   2U0Oa7Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)f  a8Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)q X0Í ÍX0Í ÍҫXx6X@QX@<6X9`(*Courier 12pt (10cpi)XXN9 xX(9 Z(Times New Roman X2PP,cAZ"Arial RegularXZ2PXP,cAZ"Arial RegularXXN\  PXP(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularXXN\  PXP(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularXXN\  PXP(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularXXN\  PXP(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularXXN\  PXP(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularXXN\  P XP(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularXXN\  P XP(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularXXN9 x X(9 Z(Times New Roman X2z&#|x Object#0WPDraw30.Drawingࡱ> Root Entry`.@p@e Ole WPG20CompObjt WPC -c#BBBB5139l `.@pCorel Presentations 9 Drawing Embed SourceWPDraw30.Drawing9qu @BOlePartOlePres000  u  000PPP```ppp@  @   @@@@@@``@```@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ @@ @ @ @@@@@@@@@@@@`@`@@`@`@`@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@  @   @@@@@@``@```@@@@@@  @   @@@@@@``@```@@@@@@  @   @@@@@@``@```@@@@@45  + METAFILEPICTu @  u  000PPP```ppp@  @   @@@@@@``@```@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ @@ @ @ @@@@@@@@@@@@`@`@@`@`@`@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@  @   @@@@@@``@```@@@@@@  @   @@@@@@``@```@@@@@@  @   @@@@@@``@```@@@@@45  +DhN=c#-@BBd UUUUUUUUUUUUU ,,,888EEEQQQaaaqqqUS A'Legal  I. A. 1. a)(1)(a) i) 1    @ #XN9 xX# dddd 1 dddd 1  !` (` ( X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court could have exercised personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to section 202214(a)(1). Under subsection (a)(5) of section 202214, a Tennessee court may assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant with respect to any action or claim for relief arising from [e]ntering into a contract for services to be rendered or for materials to be furnished in this state. Tenn. Code Ann.  202214(a)(5) (1994). Under the terms of the parties Independent Contractor Agreement, Mr. Tomlin agreed to market LIFEFAX in exchange for sales commissions to be paid by Defendants. This agreement did not specify to whom or from where Mr. Tomlin would market Defendants product. Defendants knew, however, that Mr. Tomlin lived and maintained an office in Tennessee. Defendants likely understood, then, that Mr. Tomlin intended to market LIFEFAX to Tennessee residents. Under the supervision and with the approval of Defendants, Mr. Tomlin did, in fact, market Defendants product to Tennessee residents. As a result of Mr. Tomlins efforts, Defendants entered into contracts to furnish LIFEFAX cards and to provide LIFEFAX services to its customers in Tennessee. Mr. Tomlins claims against Defendants are directly related to these contracts. Thus, we conclude that the trial court could have asserted personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to section 202214(a)(5). Finally, subsection (a)(6) of section 202214 provides that the assertion of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant is proper with respect to any action or claim for relief arising from [a]ny basis not inconsistent with the constitution of this state or of the United States. Tenn. Code Ann.  202214(a)(6) (1994). This provision requires us to consider whether there are minimum contacts between Defendants and the state of Tennessee such that maintenance of an action against Defendants in a Tennessee court does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. International Shoe , 326 U.S. at 316. As stated above, this inquiry involves the consideration of five factors, including (1) the quantity of the contacts, (2) the nature and quality of the contacts, (3) the source and connection of the cause of action with the contacts, (4) the interest of the forum state, and (5) convenience. See Masada , 697 S.W.2d at 334. With respect to the first of these factors, Mr. Tomlin has alleged no less than fourteen separate contacts of Defendants with the state of Tennessee. These contacts are more numerous than the contacts of the defendants in  Nicholstone ,  Masada , and J.I. Case . Additionally, we find that the nature and quality of Defendants contacts with the state of Tennessee are substantial in that they involve an ongoing business relationship with Mr. Tomlin as well as other Tennessee individuals and corporations. By contrast, the relationship between the parties in Masada  involved only a single real estate transaction. With respect to the third of these factors, we find that Defendants contacts with the state of Tennessee are directly related to Mr. Tomlins cause of action. In light of Mr. Tomlins allegations of fraud perpetrated upon the citizens of this state, we also think that Tennessee has a strong interest in providing a forum for the adjudication of Mr. Tomlins claims. Finally, we recognize that Defendants would be inconvenienced if required to defend a lawsuit in Tennessee. This inconvenience would be no greater, however, than the inconvenience that would be experienced by Mr. Tomlin if he was forced to pursue his claim in a Delaware court. Considering each of the five factors discussed above, we conclude that Defendants have minimum contacts with the state of Tennessee such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction by the Tennessee courts over Defendants does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. International Shoe , 326 U.S. at 316. Consequently, we hold that the trial court could have exercised personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to section 202214(a)(6).   Based on the foregoing, we find that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendants by the courts of this state is appropriate under subsections (a)(1), (a)(5), and (a)(6) of section 202214. We therefore conclude that the trial court erred in dismissing Mr. Tomlins claims for lack of personal jurisdiction. In light of this conclusion, the ruling of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Costs on appeal are taxed to Defendants, for which execution may issue if necessary. ` ` ` hhh____________________________________ FARMER, J. ______________________________ HIGHERS, J. ______________________________ LILLARD, J. #XN9 x X#