F.D. Rich Co. v. United States ex rel. Industrial Lumber Co., 417 U.S. 116, 125, 94 S.Ct. 2157, 2163, 40 L.Ed.2d 703 (1974). In United States ex rel. Pittsburgh Tank & Tower, Inc. v. G & C Enterprises, Inc., 62 F.3d 35, 36 (1st Cir.1995), the court held a contractual forum selection clause prevailed when it conflicted with the venue designated by the Miller Act. The G & C Enterprises court noted that even though the Supreme Court was not addressing a conflicting forum selection clause in F.D. Rich, the Court’s designation that the statutory language was a mere venue requirement was “explicit and very hard for a lower federal court to ignore.” Id. at 36. This court also finds such a designation hard to ignore. Interestingly, even prior t ’s Fund Ins. Cos., 588 F.2d 93, 95 (5th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>). We are persuaded by our sister circuits and
holding the case for overriding the miller act particularly strong where forum selection clause was suggested by defendants  the parties the act was designed to protect 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 a forum selection clause should not be enforced where a consumer is told by a corporate agent to ignore boilerplate contract language containing a forum selection clause where there is a material difference in bargaining power and where the forum designated by the contract has little to do with the transaction and is gravely inconvenient for the parties and witnesses holding that a forum selection clause was not enforceable against defendants that were not parties to the contract holding that a permissive forum selection clause containing a waiver of any claims of forum non conveniens amounts to a mandatory forum selection clause at least where the plaintiff chose the designated forum