Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980) (citations omitted). However, the usual due process analysis need not be done when a nonresident defendant contractually agrees to personal jurisdiction in a given state. See Alexander Proudfoot Co. World Headquarters v. Thayer, 877 F.2d 912, 921 (11th Cir.1989). Because personal jurisdiction is a waivable right, courts do not offend due process when they enforce “freely negotiated” agreements to submit controversies for resolution within a particular jurisdiction provided that the agreements are not “unreasonable and unjust.” See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 473 n. 14, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985); see also M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 15, 92 S.Ct. 1907, 32 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972) (<HOLDING>); Nat’l Equip. Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent, 375
holding that a forum selection clause was not enforceable against defendants that were not parties to the contract holding that a forum selection clause should control absent a strong showing that it be set aside as unreasonable unjust or invalid holding that when action arising under contract containing venue selection clause is filed in court other than that specified in clause case will be transferred to forum selected by contract unless venue selection clause is unreasonable and unjust or invalid due to fraud or overreaching holding remand based on forum selection clause not within  1447c holding that a permissive forum selection clause containing a waiver of any claims of forum non conveniens amounts to a mandatory forum selection clause at least where the plaintiff chose the designated forum