selected is “so gravely difficult and inconvenient that he will for all practical purposes be deprived of his day in court or that the clause was procured through fraud or overreaching.” Foster v. Chesapeake Ins. Ltd., 933 F.2d 1207, 1219 (3d Cir.1991) (citations and internal quotations omitted) (emphasis added); see also The Bremen, 407 U.S. at 12-13, 92 S.Ct. at 1914-15; Wilson of Wallingford Inc. v. Reliable Data Systems, Inc., No. 95-cv-6686, 1995 WL 734232, at *1-2 (E.D.Pa. Dec. 5, 1995) (“A federal court will generally enforce a forum selection clause unless the party seeking to avoid its enforcement shows that the clause was the result of fraud or overreaching”); Nova Ribbon Products, Inc. v. Lincoln Ribbon, Inc., No. 89-CV-4340, 1992 WL 211544, at *4-6 (E.D.Pa. Aug. 24,1992) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs argue that the forum selection
holding that corporations owned and controlled by the party signing the contract containing the forum selection clause may be bound by the clause holding that under federal law the party seeking to obviate the forum selection clause must prove that the inclusion of the clause was the result of fraud or coercion  fraud in the inducement as to the entire contract is not enough holding that the language of the arbitration clause   any controversy or claim arising out of     was broad enough to encompass the plaintiffs claim alleging fraud in the inducement of the contract holding that a forum selection clause was not enforceable against defendants that were not parties to the contract holding that the only fraud that could vitiate the contract is fraud that would invalidate the merger clause itself ie fraud relating to the merger clause or fraud that invalidates the entire contract including the merger clause quoting 3 corbin contracts  578