[14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied). Contracts with Texas Corporations. Appellees contend DENSO Japan’s contracts with Texas Instruments and a company called ACTIS Manufacturing Ltd. support general jurisdiction. Entering into contracts with Texas corporations will not support general jurisdiction when performance under the contract by the nonresident defendant is outside the state. See Coleman, 83 S.W.3d at 808; Moni Pulo Ltd. v. Trutec Oil & Gas, Inc., 130 S.W.3d 170, 175 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied) (“[Negotiating and signing a contract in Texas is insufficient if performance takes place elsewhere.”). Even limited performance in the forum state under a contract generally will not support general jurisdiction. See Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 416, 104 S.Ct. 1868 (<HOLDING>); PHC-Minden, 235 S.W.3d at 171 (holding
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 that oklahoma law firms receipt and deposit of texas clients payments drawn on a texas bank were fortuitous and thus insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction against firm in texas state court 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 where the entity was incorporated in texas and the shareholders reside in texas and the bankruptcy case is pending in texas texas law  not arizona law  should be applied holding there was no general jurisdiction even though defendant sent  its chief executive officer to texas for a contract negotiation session accepted into its bank account checks drawn on a bank in texas purchased 4 million of goods and equipment from a company in texas and sent employees to texas for training and technical consultation