to cover contract-related tort and unjust enrichment claims. Finally, the fact that the choice-of-law provision is contained in a distinct paragraph titled “Governing Law,” which also includes the forum-selection clause designating a Virginia federal district court as the proper forum, “counsels] in favor of a broad interpretation”-because that combination “manifests the intent to reduce uncertainty and proceed in one forum under one body of law.” Zaklit v. Glob. Linguist Sols., LLC, No. 1:14-cv-314, 2014 WL 3109804, at *11 (E.D. Va. July 8, 2014). In sum, the text of the choice-of-law provision points persuasively to the conclusion that the parties intended that Virginia law apply to tort and unjust enrichment claims related to the Agreement. See Freedman, 325 F.Supp.2d at 641, 653-54 (<HOLDING>). This conclusion finds further firm support in
holding that where one party had received a written agreement and conformed his conduct to that agreement for an extended period of time but failed to sign the agreement he was equitably estopped from denying the validity of the agreement holding that an agreement providing this agreement when signed by author and publisher will cancel and supercede the previous agreements  was clearly intended to terminate an earlier agreement holding that an arbitration agreement is separable from the underlying agreement holding that a choiceoflaw provision providing that virginia law would govern the parties agreement clearly foreclosed plaintiff from bringing a tort claim that arose from the plaintiffs rights under the agreement holding that the parties agreement was superseded by a subsequent agreement that stated that it comprises the entire agreement and supersedes all prior understandings and representations oral or written between the parties