United US Imports, Inc. contracted with a company in Mexico, Grupo Mexico Export
ID: 369661 • Letter: U
Question
United US Imports, Inc. contracted with a company in Mexico, Grupo Mexico Exports, to buy 20,000 tons of tomatoes. Grupo breached its contract with United and sold its products to another buyer for more money. United could sue Grupo in Mexico, or trying to get Grupo into a U.S. court. United might have reduced dispute resolution difficulties by:
d. contracting for a smaller quantity of product from the Mexico supplier.
Johnson worked for Security Agents, Inc. as a security guard at a building in New York City owned by the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, a sovereign wealth fund owned by the government of Abu Dhabi. While the building was being renovated, Johnson slipped and fell on something "that had been spilled on the floor." Contending that he suffered permanent injuries in the fall, he sued the Abu Dhabi government in tort for his injuries. The district court dismissed the suit, holding that the government was immune due to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Johnson appealed. Does the Act bar his suit?
d. No, because the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act states that countries are not immune from the jurisdiction of foreign courts based on their commercial activities.
The Lobster Feast, a commercial fishing vessel out of Alaska and the only asset of Jones & Sons Fishing, sank during a violent storm. During the accident, Stewart, a fisherman on the Lobster Feast, was injured. He sued Jones & Sons for his injuries and was awarded $350,000. Jones & Sons, having no assets, assigned Stewart all rights it had against London Insurance, the London-based insurer of the boat. Stewart took his claim to London Insurance, but it denied the demand and invoked the arbitration process specified in the policy, which called for arbitration of all coverage disputes in London. Stewart then sued, contesting the validity of the arbitration provision. The district court held for London Insurance. Stewart appealed. Does he have a valid claim?
a. relying on World Bank import guarantees. b. requiring a conflicts of law clause be placed in its sales agreement. c. entering into an agreement with U.S. suppliers since they do not breach their contracts.d. contracting for a smaller quantity of product from the Mexico supplier.
Johnson worked for Security Agents, Inc. as a security guard at a building in New York City owned by the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, a sovereign wealth fund owned by the government of Abu Dhabi. While the building was being renovated, Johnson slipped and fell on something "that had been spilled on the floor." Contending that he suffered permanent injuries in the fall, he sued the Abu Dhabi government in tort for his injuries. The district court dismissed the suit, holding that the government was immune due to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Johnson appealed. Does the Act bar his suit?
a. Yes, because the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act states that a sovereign should never be subject to litigation in a foreign court. b. No, because the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies to U.S. companies and their agents from bribing foreign officials, not to commercial activities involving foreign nations. c. Yes, because the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act protects countries and their officials in international business transactions.d. No, because the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act states that countries are not immune from the jurisdiction of foreign courts based on their commercial activities.
The Lobster Feast, a commercial fishing vessel out of Alaska and the only asset of Jones & Sons Fishing, sank during a violent storm. During the accident, Stewart, a fisherman on the Lobster Feast, was injured. He sued Jones & Sons for his injuries and was awarded $350,000. Jones & Sons, having no assets, assigned Stewart all rights it had against London Insurance, the London-based insurer of the boat. Stewart took his claim to London Insurance, but it denied the demand and invoked the arbitration process specified in the policy, which called for arbitration of all coverage disputes in London. Stewart then sued, contesting the validity of the arbitration provision. The district court held for London Insurance. Stewart appealed. Does he have a valid claim?
a. Yes, because the lawsuit was not against London Insurance, but against Jones & Sons. b. No, because his only recourse was against Jones & Sons, not against London Insurance. c. Yes, because all claims arising in the U.S. are handled by U.S. courts, not courts in a foreign jurisdiction. d. No, because all parties, even assignees, are bound by international arbitration clauses.Explanation / Answer
1. b. requiring a conflicts of law clause be placed in its sales agreement.
conflicts of law clause is a clause which governs the forum selection or choice of jurisdiction or court. This clause allows the parties to agree that if any dispute arises related to the contract, the same will be resolved in the forum as mutually agreed and written in the contract.
2. d. No, because the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act states that countries are not immune from the jurisdiction of foreign courts based on their commercial activities.
If a foreign state engages in commercial activities, then it is not protected under FSIA as per § 1605(a)(2)
3. d. No, because all parties, even assignees, are bound by international arbitration clauses.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.