- How do those who argue that corporations have a moral obligation to intentionally pursue a socially responsible path respond to the argument that law is an adequate control on corporate behavior?
- In the West v. Multibanco Comermexcase, a U.S. investor in Mexico lost a substantial portion of his investment when the Mexican government instituted a program of exchange control regulations that included nationalization of the entire private banking system. West, the investor claimed that his investment was expropriated. According to U.S. courts, what are the rules governing expropriation? Did this investor win? Clearly explain the court’s rationale
- Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands had a dispute over which nation controlled certain areas of their coastal waters. Denmark and the Netherlands argued that the three nations were required by international law to respect “the equidistance principle” because the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf prescribed that method when nations were unable to reach an agreement. Germany argued that it was not bound by that treaty because, unlike Denmark and the Netherlands, it had never ratified it. Denmark and the Netherlands responded that Germany’s use of the equidistance principle in earlier disputes demonstrated its acceptance of this method of defining coastal territory. How would the International Court of Justice (World Court) determine if Germany is bound by equidistanceprinciple? (I am asking you to clearly and fully describe the two basic sources of international law.)
- OMS is a Canadian corporation with its principal place of business in Canada. Command-Aire is incorporated in Texas and has its principal place of business there. The OMS president met with Command-Aire representatives at a convention in Chicago and discussed the possible purchase of heat pump equipment manufactured by Command-Aire. At one point, OMS representatives traveled to Texas to deliver and discuss design specifications. Contract negotiations were conducted, and the contract was finally consummated by use of telephonic and mail services. Although the initial sales agreement contemplated that Command-Aire would deliver the equipment in Canada, the parties ultimately agreed that OMS would take possession in Texas. OMS installed the pumps in Canadian condominiums. Later, when the heating pumps proved to be defective, OMS refused to make further payments. Command-Aire filed suit in a federal court in Texas. (A) Does the Texas court have personal jurisdiction over OMS? Clearly explain the test a court will use to answer this question. (B) Suppose the court rules that it does have personal jurisdiction and OMS moves to dismiss on the grounds of forum non conveniens. Clearly explain the analysis the court would use in ruling on this motion.
- We read about various legal concepts that arise in the context of arbitration. The following questions are drawn from the issues that arose in those cases. (A) In the context of arbitration disputes, the concept of unconscionability sometimes arises. How does a court determine if a contract is unconscionable? What is the test? (B) Another concept that generally arises when there are disputes over arbitration is the separability doctrine. Clearly describe what we mean by the separability doctrine.
- We read a series of cases dealing with sovereign immunity and the U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). (A) Identify two instances in which the FSIA strips a nation of sovereign immunity. (B) One specific case that we read dealt with a lawsuit against the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Specifically, how did the court resolve this dispute? (C) Identify two ways in which sovereign immunity differs from the act of state doctrine.
- International Promotions and Ventures, a U.S. corporation, contracted to supply 52 Starfighter jets to the Republic of Bolivia in return for negotiable promissory notes (Promissory notes are loans.) guaranteed by the Central Bank of Bolivia. Although Bolivia was required to issue the notes upon the signing of the contract, the contract expressly required International Promotions to return the notes if U.S. governmental authorities failed to approve the transfer of the aircraft. When the U.S. State Department refused to issue the necessary export licenses for the aircraft, Bolivia requested the return of the notes it had issued. However, International Promotions had already sold one of the notes to a U.S. citizen, David Shapiro. When Shapiro attempted to collect on the note, Bolivia refused to pay. Shapiro then sued Bolivia in a U.S. court. Under the applicable legal rules, Shapiro would be entitled to payment. However, Bolivia argued that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case. (A) Based on your readings, explain why Bolivia might believe that the U.S. court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. (B) Does the U.S. court have subject-matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit? Explain. (C) Based on our readings, describe another theory that Bolivia might use to keep this case out of the U.S. court.
- Identify two (2) international current events of your choice from the past three weeks related to the Chapters on this exam. Fully explain the followingto earn all points, and include hyperlinks to your sources/articles:
a) the legal implications
b) the business implications.
- Assignment status: Already Solved By Our Experts
- (USA, AUS, UK & CA PhD. Writers)
- CLICK HERE TO GET A PROFESSIONAL WRITER TO WORK ON THIS PAPER AND OTHER SIMILAR PAPERS, GET A NON PLAGIARIZED PAPER FROM OUR EXPERTS