dissenting.
I believe it was within the trial court’s discretion to deny the special appearances of Magnolia and MKP. I, therefore, respectfully dissent.
In determining whether a trial court abused its discretion, an appellate court must be deferential to the court’s fact findings, reversing those findings only if the trial court could reasonably have reached only one decision. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex.1992). On legal questions, a reviewing court may be less deferential and may reverse a trial court if that court clearly failed to correctly analyze and apply the law. Id. at 840. As the majority points out, where no findings of fact are filed by the trial court, all facts are presumed to support thé judgment. Zac Smith & Co., Inc. v. Otis Elevator Co., 734 S.W.2d 662, 666 (Tex.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1063, 108 S.Ct. 1022, 98 L.Ed.2d 986 (1988). While it is true that if a reporter’s record is contained in the appellate record, those facts are not conclusive, id., I do not take this to mean that the appellate court may, under an abuse of discretion standard, resolve factual disputes reflected by the record. See id. (presuming, in absence of findings but where reporter’s record is included in record, that sole disputed fact supports trial court’s finding); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 839-40 (findings of fact may be reversed only if trial court could reasonably have reached one decision). The presumption that the facts support the judgment should only be overcome by an absence of supporting facts in the record. See Otis Elevator, 734 S.W.2d at 666. Otherwise, the deference given trial courts in their fact-finding roles would be meaningless. The majority finds an absence of facts in the record amounting to minimum contacts and that the assertion of personal jurisdiction over Magnolia and MKP would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. I disagree. This record presents nothing more than a factual dispute. The trial court acted within its discretion in resolving that dispute.
In order to find that it has specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant, a court must determine whether the cause pleaded “arose out of the contacts” the defendant had with the state. See Beechem v. Pippin, 686 S.W.2d 356, 361 (Tex.App.-Austin 1985, no writ). It.is necessary to establish whether the defendants purposely availed themselves of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state. Id. The record contains evidence that MKP and Magnolia did so when entering the contract with KEMCO.
The crux of this dispute is what the parties contracted for. According to Magnolia and MKP, the contract was for the installation of a gas plant in Arkansas. They argue that all other matters are incidental tó that agreement. In what state KEMCO “chose” to do the refurbishing contemplated by the agreement and necessary for performance was of no concern to Magnolia and MKP.
KEMCO, on the other hand, argues that the contract specifically contemplated that much of the refurbishing work would be done at its plant in Jourdanton, Texas. KEMCO points to a work order attached to the contract in dispute, which states that KEMCO is to “dismantle, remove and transport all Kellyville equipment items listed in Exhibit ‘D’ to Contractor’s [KEM-CO’s] yard.” Since that yard is in Texas, Magnolia and MKP would thus benefit from the work of Texas employees, whose work was governed by Texas laws. Under this argument, Magnolia and MKP did purposely avail themselves of the privilege of conducting activities within Texas. According to KEMCO, the work done at its plant amounted to eighty percent of the work contemplated by the agreement.1
*695The majority is correct in observing that jurisdiction may not be supported by the unilateral acts of the plaintiff. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). It has been held that the purchasing of products that were constructed in Texas cannot, without more, be sufficient to support jurisdiction. See Hydrokinetics, Inc. v. Alaska Mechanical, Inc., 700 F.2d 1026, 1029 (5th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 962, 104 S.Ct. 2180, 80 L.Ed.2d 561 (1984). Nor is mere payment on a contract in Texas by itself sufficient. See U-Anchor Advertising, Inc. v. Burt, 553 S.W.2d 760, 763 (Tex.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1063, 98 S.Ct. 1235, 55 L.Ed.2d 763 (1978). However, in this case, both parties performed part of their contractual duties in this state. MKP and Magnolia wired payments to accounts in this state, and KEM-CO did refurbishing work here.
The contract at issue is not for the mere purchase of a product that was, incidentally, manufactured in Texas. Instead, the contract contemplates that parts be refurbished and transferred. This work is an integral part of the agreement. M & M, and then Magnolia and MKP, did not desire merely to purchase a plant or even to have one constructed for them in Arkansas. They sought the refurbishment of parts and the transfer of those parts to Arkansas and the construction there of a plant. KEMCO’s yard is located in Texas. It is clear that the parties contemplated and purposely availed themselves of the privilege of conducting activities in Texas. The evidence presented to the trial court supports such a finding.
KEMCO officials testified that Magnolia and MKP understood where the work was to be done. George Keeney, a vice president of Okland Oil Company, the managing member of Magnolia, stated that he knew before the contract was executed that some of the work would be done in Texas. The companies had a brochure that identified the location of KEMCO’s yard and the nature of KEMCO’s business. According to the affidavit of Deral Knight, chief executive officer of KEMCO, the brochure clearly states that KEMCO does its refurbishing work at its Jourdanton yard.2 The contract itself specifies that the work will be done at the “Contractor’s yard.” No one has claimed that this language is ambiguous. The record does not reflect that KEMCO, the contractor, had any yard but the one in Jourdanton at the time this contract was entered into. The trial court could have determined that partial performance in Texas was accomplished with Magnolia’s and MKP’s consent. See Castle v. Berg, 415 S.W.2d 523, 525 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1967, no writ) (noting that although agreement didn’t specify place for performance, such performance was accomplished in Texas, with appellant’s consent, and this was sufficient to establish minimum contacts).
“Narrow factual distinctions will often suffice to swing the due process pendulum” in jurisdiction cases. U-Anchor Advertising, Inc., 553 S.W.2d at 764. A review of the disposition of such cases in Texas suggests that this trial judge operated well within the parameters of established law in denying Magnolia’s and MKP’s special appearance. See Ross F. Meriwether & Assoc., Inc. v. Aulbach, 686 S.W.2d 730, 731 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1985, no writ) (nonresident is subject to suit if the cause of action arises from transaction consummated in Texas and jurisdiction comports with fair play and substantial justice); Beechem, 686 S.W.2d at 362 (upholding jurisdiction where party sought contract in Texas by telephone and made payments in Texas); Wright Waterproofing Co. v. Applied Polymers of Am., 602 S.W.2d 67, 71 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1980), unit ref'd n.r.e., 608 S.W.2d 164 *696(corporation availed itself of Texas law by coming to state to negotiate sale of its product); Pizza Inn, Inc. v. Lumar, 513 S.W.2d 251, 254 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1974, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (defendant was “doing business” in Texas when it entered into contract by mail with Texas corporation and contract was to be performed, in part, in Texas); Berg, 415 S.W.2d at 525 (finding personal jurisdiction where contract was made in Texas and, with appellant’s consent, partly performed there). That other courts have found no jurisdiction in similar cases simply illustrates what it means to leave a matter to a trial judge’s discretion.
The majority acknowledges that it must assume the trial court found that both parties contemplated some part of each party’s performance would occur in Texas. Despite this acknowledgment that the trial court could reasonably have reached this finding from the evidence presented, the majority concludes that Magnolia and MKP did not purposefully avail themselves of the benefits and protections of Texas law because the Texas contacts were incidental and immaterial. I find nothing incidental or immaterial in the fact that the parties contemplated that KEMCO was to perform the refurbishing work, that was an integral component of the scope of the work to be performed under the contract, in Texas. The majority substitutes its opinion regarding the nature of the work the parties contemplated being performed in Texas for that of the trial court’s. That is not the proper role for this court in conducting an abuse of discretion review.
The record supports the trial court’s finding that Magnolia’s and MKP’s contacts with Texas were sufficient to give rise to specific personal jurisdiction. The question of whether exercising such jurisdiction comports with notions of fair play and substantial justice is fairly easy. See Guardian Royal Exch. Assurance, Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.L.C., 815 S.W.2d 223, 231 (Tex.1991) (where defendant has established minimum contacts, exercise of jurisdiction is only rarely unfair or unjust). Determining whether something is “fair”' or “just” is to some degree a subjective inquiry. A trial judge’s determination in this area should be given great deference. The trial judge acted within his discretion in determining that jurisdiction was fair, and evidence in the record supports his conclusion.
I concede that litigation in Arkansas would be more convenient and perhaps less burdensome to the defendants. However, convenience is not the only factor to consider and should not be determinative. See Beechem, 686 S.W.2d at 360 (discussing problems inherent in this consideration, such as new mobility of society). If convenience to the defendant were to be dispositive, few, if any, non-resident defendants would be sued in Texas.
I disagree with the majority’s contention that Texas’s interest in being the forum state is “tenuous.” Texas, as the majority acknowledges, has an interest in protecting its citizens from breached contracts, fraudulent conduct, and conspiracies. See Lujan v. Sun Exploration & Prod. Co. 798 S.W.2d 828, 833 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1990, writ denied). Those from out of state who contract with Texas corporations should not be able to avoid those protections under the pretext that they “didn’t know” the contract would be performed in this state. I do not find the fact that KEMCO has been sued in Arkansas relevant to this consideration at all. Texas, of course, has no interest in providing its citizens the protections and benefits of suit in Arkansas. Texas’s interest is in providing a convenient forum for suit in Texas.
Finally, I am not persuaded in this case that the interstate judicial system’s interest should weigh as heavily in the balance as the majority seems to suggest. The record is unclear about the status of the suits brought in Arkansas. KEMCO asserts in its brief that the Arkansas litigation fails to include all the parties named in the Texas litigation and that the Arkansas litigation has slowed to a standstill.
*697The trial court was not required by law to consider the Arkansas litigation as dis-positive to this case. See Quiroz v. McNamara, 585 S.W.2d 859, 864 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1979, no writ) (pendency of action in another state does not preclude assumption of jurisdiction by Texas court). It was within the trial court’s discretion to weigh the factors and evidence before it. It did so, and the evidence supports the decision reached.
Conclusion
The majority correctly articulates the standard of review, but disregards that standard in reaching its decision. The trial court was within its discretion in resolving the factual dispute before it. I would affirm the judgment.
. The record neither supports nor undermines this assertion. It is clear, however, *695that some of the work was performed in Jour-danton.
. The brochure states, "KEMCO has the capability to completely assemble and test entire plants at its facility in Jourdanton, Texas.”