It is beyond cavil that a "choice of law" provision is not conclusive in deciding the issue of personal jurisdiction in a multi-state dispute. For example, in the leading case of Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 105 S. Ct. 2174, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528 (1985), the Supreme Court examined the effects of just such a provision; to-wit: ... Choice of law analysis--which focuses on all elements of a transaction, and not simply on the defendant's conduct is distinct from minimum contacts jurisdictional analysis which focuses at the threshold solely on the defendant's purposeful connection to the forum... Such a provision standing alone would be insufficient to confer jurisdiction. Id. at 482, 105 S. Ct. at 2187; Stuart v. Spademan, 772 F.2d 1185, 1189 (5th Cir. 1985)(choice of law provision must be distinguished from choice of forum provision which designates specifically the forum wherein actions relating to agreement are to be brought). A a provision in an agreement that the laws of a particular forum are to govern disputes arising under the agreement is not the equivalent of a consent to personal jurisdiction. Tandy Computer Leasing v. DeMarco, 388 Pa. Super. 128, 564 A.2d 1299, 1303 (Pa.Super. 1989).