Question 1

In the facts of the previous question,according to the reasoning of the dissent in Dole Food Co.v.Patrickson,parties who would be potentially subject to suit in U.S.courts would include&#10;A)Amigos and Bueno.&#10;B)neither Amigos nor Bueno.&#10;C)only Amigos.&#10;D)only Bueno.

Accepted Answer

The dissent in Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson argued that both Amigos and Bueno could potentially be subject to suit in U.S. courts, as it focused on the broader interpretation of jurisdiction over foreign entities.

Question 2

In the facts of the previous questions,a U.S.court might pierce Amigos and Bueno's corporate status to impose liability on their owners,including the government of Chile,if the firms failed to follow or be involved in

A)business activities.
B)corporate formalities.
C)ethical practices.
D)foreign affairs

B

Accepted Answer

If Amigos and Bueno fail to follow corporate formalities, such as holding regular meetings and maintaining proper documentation, a U.S. court may pierce their corporate veil and hold the owners, including the government of Chile, personally liable for the company's actions.

Question 3

Amigos,Ltd. ,and Bueno,S.A. ,are Chilean firms.Amigos owns a majority of the shares of Bueno.The government of Chile owns a few shares of Amigos.Under the decision in Dole Food Co.v.Patrickson,parties who are immune from suit in U.S.courts under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act,as instrumentalities of foreign states,would include

A)Amigos and Bueno.
B)neither Amigos nor Bueno.
C)only Amigos.
D)only Bueno.

C

Accepted Answer

Amigos is an instrumentality of a foreign state because the government of Chile owns a few shares of Amigos.

Deck 40: Unit Case Study With Dissenting Opinion: Dole Food Co V Patrickson