Question 1

Sam, or any U.S. citizen, can bring a civil suit in a U.S. court against a foreign entity for

Accepted Answer

U.S. citizens can bring a civil suit in a U.S. court against a foreign entity for a tort allegedly committed in the United States or overseas. However, it may be more difficult to enforce a judgment against a foreign entity in certain circumstances, such as if there is no treaty or agreement between the U.S. and the foreign entity's home country.

Question 2

Savory Cooking Sauces, Inc., a U.S. business firm, makes and sells distinctively flavored cooking sauces. Although the recipes are secret, the ingredients could be revealed and the sauces could be reconstructed with diligent efforts. What can Savory do to prevent its products from being "decoded" and pirated abroad?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Savory Cooking Sauces, Inc., a U.S. business...

Question 3

Quality Energy Company, a U.S. firm, and Royal Petro, a Dutch firm, enter into a contract that includes an arbitration clause. This clause must provide that the arbitrator will be

Accepted Answer

The answer of Quality Energy Company, a U.S. firm, and...

Question 4

Bango! Business, Inc., a U.S. firm, may have committed, in Chile, acts that would constitute, in the United States, violations of U.S. antitrust laws. These laws apply

Accepted Answer

U.S. antitrust laws apply extraterritorially, which means that they can be enforced outside of U.S. borders if a U.S. company engages in behavior that would violate U.S. antitrust laws.

Question 5

Two Japanese firms-Mikato, Ltd., and Shuzushi, Ltd.-enter into a joint venture in an attempt to increase their market share of the U.S. auto market. If the joint venture is not a per se violation of U.S. antitrust laws, a U.S. court could exercise jurisdiction over the firms

Accepted Answer

A U.S. court could exercise jurisdiction over the firms if the joint venture has a substantial effect on U.S. commerce. The Sherman Antitrust Act applies to activities outside the United States if they have a substantial effect on U.S. commerce. Therefore, if the joint venture between Mikato, Ltd. and Shuzushi, Ltd. has a substantial effect on the U.S. auto market, then a U.S. court could exercise jurisdiction over the firms.

Question 6

The management of Sport Shoes Corporation, a U.S. firm, wants to expand into foreign investment and employment markets. They are considering either opening their own production facility in a foreign country or entering into a licensing agreement with a foreign firm. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each of these courses of action?

Accepted Answer

The answer of The management of Sport Shoes Corporation, a...

Question 7

Suisse Internationale, a Swiss maker of athletic equipment, enters into a price fixing agreement with Total World Sports, a U.S. wholesaler of Suisse's products. U.S. courts will apply U.S. antitrust laws if

Accepted Answer

U.S. courts can apply U.S. antitrust laws if the price fixing has a substantial effect on U.S. commerce, regardless of where the agreement was made. This is known as the "effects doctrine."

Question 8

Real World Sports Corporation (RWSC) is a U.S. firm with a workplace in Switzerland. Generally, RWSC must abide by U.S. anti-discrimination laws in Switzerland

Accepted Answer

RWSC must abide by U.S. anti-discrimination laws in Switzerland unless to do so would violate the law of Switzerland. The laws of the country where the workplace is located take precedence over U.S. laws in such situations.

Question 9

Bulbous Cordials, Inc., a U.S. firm, enters into an agreement with Columbiana Cacao, S.A., a South American firm, to fix the price of dark chocolate in the U.S. market. If the agreement is a per se violation of U.S. antitrust laws, a U.S. court could exercise jurisdiction over

Accepted Answer

If the agreement is a per se violation of U.S. antitrust laws, then both parties involved, Bulbous Cordials and Columbiana Cacao, would be subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Per se violations are considered to be illegal on their face, without any further analysis of their effects on competition, and are typically prosecuted more aggressively by antitrust authorities.

Question 10

Qang and other foreign citizens allege human rights violations committed overseas by the government of Burma on behalf of Railway Construction Company, a U.S. firm. To seek redress for their injuries in a U.S. court, these citizens can

Accepted Answer

The most appropriate choice is to bring civil suits under the Alien Tort Claims Act. This act allows foreign citizens to sue in U.S. courts for violations of international law, including human rights abuses committed overseas. The other options, alleging antitrust injuries under the Sherman Act or filing criminal complaints under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, are not relevant to the situation described. Doing nothing would not provide redress for the alleged injuries.

Question 11

Miranda is a U.S. citizen working in Europe for Tourist Vacations, Inc., a U.S. travel agency. Tourist fires Miranda for reasons that she believes violate U.S. antidiscrimination laws. Those laws apply

Accepted Answer

U.S. antidiscrimination laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 apply extraterritorially to U.S. citizens and U.S.-based companies operating abroad. Therefore, Miranda can potentially pursue legal action under U.S. antidiscrimination laws.

Question 12

Telfonix Corporation, a U.S. firm, and Adex, Inc., a British firm, are parties to a contract with a forum-selection clause. The forum specified in the clause

Accepted Answer

The answer of Telfonix Corporation, a U.S. firm, and Adex,...

Quiz 8: International Law in a Global Economy