International Law & Dispute Resolution

QUESTION 1 – International Law & Dispute Resolution

Expropriation is the deprivation of an owner’s rights through legal or illegal means. It is the acquisition of foreign property by a state. The purposes for such actions may be public or for other reasons. In the case presented, a US Court would rule in favour of the plaintiff. From the case analysis, the nationalization of the sugar company involved a legal process, initiated by a broker. However, illegalities were involved in paying back the terms of the $175m owed to the original owners from a pending contract.

The private owners were not compensated for the pending contracts nor for the terms of a takeover. The process lacked just compensation in any form and severance damages were not provided for the owners. The amount awarded to Banco Nacional de Cuba should have been awarded to the former owners, owing to the fact that there was an ongoing contract, meaning that they had rights to that specific transaction.

QUESTION 2 – State Responsibility

The international tribunal will rule that against State X. State Y is liable for a breach of its obligations, provided that the said breach can be attributed to the state itself. State Y would only be responsible for a direct violation of international law. However, State Y would be held liable if the terrorists were acting on behalf of the state or its internal institutions. The terrorist group was not exercising government authority and was not under any control or direction from State Y.

The private activities of the terrorist groups were not at any period adopted by State Y. State Y did all it could have done in its capacity to subdue the threat given its mandate. It neither negotiated nor cooperated with the terrorist cell. Therefore, State Y exercised its duties and cannot be held responsible for indirectly causing the death of Mr. Z.

QUESTION 3 – Choice of Law

To this dispute, the as of State B should apply because State B has the most significant relationship to the interaction of the two parties (road accident) that led to the dispute. The accident occurred in State B, thus creating significant contact for consideration of the dispute. The place of contact, performance, and the location of the dispute for both parties is State B.

While Ivana argues for State C because of her ties to it in terms of residence and nationality, State B’s interest in the dispute is significantly high. The place where the injury occurred and the place where the relationship of the two parties was centered is State B. The policies of State B should also apply in terms of any other issues not mentioned in the case. The laws of State B are likely to be used to determine blame and causality for the accident, meaning that the same should be applied to form uniform results.

QUESTION 4 – Competition Law

Antitrust laws require companies to individually establish prices and any other terms, without prior agreements with competitors. Consumers make the choice to purchase on an assumption that the prices have been determined with fairness and freely based on the forces of supply and demand. A company does not have an obligation to consult any other manufacturer before setting its own prices.

The actions of Puro cannot be challenged in a US court because there is no evidence of dumping. Puro is reacting to its own processes of supply and demand. Due to the lower production costs, it is able to set its prices relatively lower than other companies based in the United States. Without evidence of illegal activities leading to an unfair advantage, Puro’s activities cannot be challenged in a US Court.

QUESTION 5 – Sharp Sales Practices

Based on the facts of the case, the US investor should be concerned about the activities with the Nigerian officials. While it is not unlawful to dine and wine with officials from the country that one desires to begin operations, it can be argued that this was a form of bribery. The US investor employed tricky and dishonorable means to get the officials to agree to a 100% foreign owned plant. Similarly, the US investor paid a $500,000 bribe to a Nigerian government official in order to expedite the sale of the plant.

The first activity of wining and dining the Nigerian officials is a sharp practice, one that may not be of any concern to the US investor. However, the second activity of directly paying money to a Nigerian official in order to expedite the sale of the plant amount to bribery. This should be investigated as an illegal activity.

QUESTION 6 – Intellectual Property

In any dispute in China between Treasury Wine Estate and Daniel Li about the use of the trade name “Penfolds”, Daniel Li would win because of the territorial aspect of the name. The trade name functions only within the country and state where it is registered. Because Treasury Wine Estate is not registered in China, then the company would not have any rights to the name Penfolds. Daniel Li legally owns the name in China and has the right to use it in China.

Treasury Wine Estate should have registered as global. This way, it would own the international trademark protection, applicable in China and in Australia as well as 113 other countries. Another alternative would be to directly register in China before Daniel Li. However, since this option is not available, Treasury Wine Estate should consider acquiring Daniel Li’s company in order to own controlling rights to the trademark.

QUESTION 7 – Trade in Goods

The court in State M should not overrule the decision of the State M customs service. The decision by State K to provide subsidies to Eager including tax breaks and other provisions is a competitive advantage to the organization. By operating in State M, Eager is subject to the same laws as Fone. Having subsidies from State K’s domestic market does not mean that State M should impose a countervailing duty against goods from the former. Such a direction would be against WTO competition laws.

Yes. My answer would change if the facts revealed that the real reason that the government of State K provided these subsidies was to win market share for its domestic businesses in State M. this would amount to unfair trade practices and would require the intervention of an international tribunal.

QUESTION 8 – International Sales of Goods

According to the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, the remedy available to the buyer includes accepting the 1900 barrels and seeking compensation for the 100 barrels either through a refund or via the available domestic pricing at $75 per barrel.

If the 100 barres were damaged by a natural disaster, the buyer would wait for the seller to get cure. This means that compensation from insurance and third parties would be used to honor the terms of the agreement.

QUESTION 9 – Transportation of Goods

Carlton & Universal Beverages Pty Ltd is the correct party to sue Oceanic Lines. This is because the two were in a contractual agreement, one that demanded the latter to transport goods to safety and to take over liability in the transportation route and processes. This means that Carlton & Universal Beverages Pty Ltd has a duty to recover the products that were intended for business sin the US. It can achieve so by showing that Oceanic Lines did not honor the agreement.

Oceanic Lines and the MV Minnow are incorrect in their legal position because the case involves a contract. The firm had a contractual performance to transport goods to the US and a duty to take liability in case the same were not availed at the agreed location. In the case presented, transportation of goods is a contractual agreement, one that should be honored by the transporting agent.

QUESTION 10 – Financing

A Court in State P should not grant Importers Ltd the request to stop its bank from making payment on the Letter of Credit. This is because the accusations made do not have proof and also the contract is irrevocable. Overseas Exporters Ltd execute the terms of the contract without fail. The company ensured that it met the demands of the contract including a clean “on board bill of lading” for “10 new passenger cars”. Therefore, the bank must proceed to make payment as agreed since the accusations made are from a competitor of Overseas Exporters Ltd and lacks any proof of any illegalities that may lead to nullification of the contract.

However, if the Bill of Lading stated that the cars were not new but ‘near new’, the bank would not be required to pay on this change of facts. The original agreement was that Overseas Exporters Ltd delivers 10 new cars. If the Bill of Lading stated the cars to be “near new”, then this would mean that the terms of the contract were not honored. The bank would not be required to pay due to these changes.