the governing legal framework. Aspen cites Allen v. Lloyd’s of London, 94 F.3d 923 (4th Cir.1996), and Rice v. Bellsouth Adver. & Publ’g Corp., 240 F.Supp.2d 526 (W.D.N.C.2002), and argues that traditional forum selection clause jurisprudence applies. See Pl.’s Mem. in Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss 45. Moreover, Aspen contends that the forum selection clause is not dispositive, and that it merits little weight because it is unreasonable. See id. at 4-7; Allen, 94 F.3d at 928 (“But the presumption of enforceability that forum selection and choice of law provisions enjoy is not absolute and, therefore, may be overcome by a clear showing that they are unreasonable under the circumstances.” (quotation omitted)); Rice, 240 F.Supp.2d at 528 34, 8, 92 S.Ct. 1907, 32 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972) (<HOLDING>). Courts have rejected the traditional forum
holding that a broadly worded forum selection clause extending to any dispute arising  in relation to  the contract easily encompasses a dispute in which the contract is raised as a defense recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract holding that contract promise to litigate any dispute arising from the contract in the english courts was prima facie valid quoting underlying contract holding that an attorney approval clause in a contract for the sale of real estate was a part of that contract and would have to be satisfied for the underlying contract to be enforceable holding that for a suit to be brought in the venue in which the contract was to be performed the contract must expressly state where the performance of the contract was to occur