judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies; and (5) the shared interest of the several states in furthering fundamental social policies. In re S.A.V., 837 S.W.2d at 86. 9 . In opposing PVF’s special appearance, Pro Metals submitted affidavits showing that: (1) PVF placed thirty separate purchase .orders with Pro Metals; (2) many of the pipe and pipe fitting components were manufactured in Texas; (3) the goods were purchased from Pro Metals’s Texas inventory; (4) PVF was responsible for the payment of freight because the goods were shipped "F.O.B. Houston;” (5) payment of goods was to be made to Pro Metals’s office in Texas; and (6) PVF initiated contact with Pro Metals by requesting 6 S.W.2d 135, 143 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (<HOLDING>); with Southwest Offset Inc. v. Hudco Publ’g
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 that texas lacked jurisdiction over a tennessee general contractor which orally solicited and contracted with a texas electrical contractor to perform electrical work in colorado and which directed payments telephone calls and correspondence to texas holding that jurisdiction existed over two georgia residents who leased a machine from a texas resident because they 1 solicited and negotiated the lease agreement by two telephone calls to texas 2 sent correspondence and payments by mail to texas 3 paid for the transfer of the machine from texas and 4 caused their insurance agent to contact the texas resident in texas to arrange coverage for the machine 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 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