This is a law case heard in N.Y.
I can't understand what control absent mean.
If somebody is interested in the whole text, he/she can find it at google scholar. Case 05-CV-1161 (ILG).
In The Bremen, the contract between the parties provided that "any dispute arising must be treated before the London Court of Justice." 407 U.S. at 2, 92 S.Ct. 1907. Relying on the FSC, a motion was made to dismiss the action brought in Florida for lack of jurisdiction. In granting the motion, the Supreme Court indicated a strong federal preference for the enforcement of forum selection clauses. It held that a ". . . forum clause should control absent a strong showing that it should be set aside." Id., at 15, 92 S.Ct. 1907. Generally, a forum selection clause will only be enforced if it is mandatory or exclusive. John Boutari & Son v. Attiki Importers & Distribs., 22 F.3d 51, 53 (2d Cir.1994); Central National-Gottesman, 204 F.Supp.2d 675, 678 (2d Cir.2002). However, even a mandatory or exclusive forum selection clause can be overcome by a showing that the clause is unreasonable:
Finally, as noted in The Bremen:
317 Thus, in the light of present-day commercial realities and expanding international trade we conclude that the forum clause should control absent a strong showing that it should be set aside. . . . The correct approach would have been to enforce the forum clause specifically unless [the nonmovant] could clearly show that enforcement would be unreasonable and unjust, or that the clause was invalid for such reasons as fraud or overreaching.
407 U.S. at 15, 92 S.Ct. 1907.
Could you explain the grammar here.
I've never heard of such asyndeton case.