facts that Stanley Machinery was not doing business in Texas, had not consummated the complained-of transaction in Texas, and that the cause of action did not arise from some act or transaction in Texas. See id. at 793-94; see also Hayes v. Wissel, 882 S.W.2d 97 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1994, no writ) (relying on C.W. Brown in affirmance of special appearance). C-Loc’s entering into a sales agreement with Hendrix in itself does not establish purposeful availment. See Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 478, 105 S.Ct. 2174; Temperature Sys., Inc., 854 S.W.2d at 675. Nor is the shipment of the materials from Michigan to Texas sufficient to justify an exercise of personal jurisdiction. See Stuart v. Spademan, 772 F.2d 1185, 1193 (5th Cir.1985) (citing Loumar v. Smith, 698 F.2d 759 (5th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>)). Moreover, like the plaintiff in C.W. Brown,
holding there was no general jurisdiction when there was no evidence that defendants advertised or promoted their goods or services in texas solicited business in texas sold their goods or services to a texas entity established a general business office or general business presence in texas or targeted texas markets holding that jurisdiction existed over nonresident guarantor of debt to texas creditor based only on sending a guaranty agreement to texas and discussing the general pattern of texas cases holding likewise holding that jurisdiction existed over nonresident printing customer despite the fact that texas printer solicited the business in alabama and nonresident sent no personnel to texas because nonresident placed additional orders from which it expected to profit sent payments to texas sent and received printing materials to and from texas paid for shipping of printed goods from texas and sent payments to texas the transactions were governed by texas law and substantial part of performance occurred in texas holding no jurisdiction over nonresident customer where contract was solicited negotiated and consummated in oklahoma for billboards to be built in texas and erected in oklahoma payments were made to texas and defendant would not earn a profit from texas and had no other contact with texas holding nonresident partnership not subject to personal jurisdiction of texas court although it sold and shipped to texas plaintiff goods that were subject of breach of contract claim