Question 1. Choose a product and a country to which you wish to export that product. Identify the factors that would need to be addressed in order to ensure a successful venture.
Question 2. Is it or is it not appropriate for colleges and universities to enact bans against the products of U.S. companies using foreign labor?
Question 3. As a seller who fails to deliver goods on time, consider whether U.S law or the CISG favors your interests.
Question 4. Consider the interaction between and contradictions of the NAFTA Implementation Act and the U.S Constitution's Treat Clause.
Question 5. Compare and contrasts the liability of air carriers and sea carriers.
Question 6. As a seller to a foreign market, assess whether you would prefer to use a documentary sale than a sale on open account terms.
Question 7. Caspiana is a small state located in Central Asia. Caspiana has been a staunch U.S. ally for many years and is an important source of many precious metals utilized by the defense industry in the production of advanced weaponry. U.S. defense contractors and the U.S. government have been Caspiana's primary customers for these precious metals, many of which are found nowhere else in the world. Additionally, Caspiana's territory has served as a base for U.S. antiterrorism efforts in Central Asia.
Caspiana shares a border with Arala. Arala is a much larger state ruled by a military dictatorship and possessing a large military. However, Arala lacks the mineral wealth possessed by Caspiana. In recent years, Arala military forces have crossed the border, seized stockpiles of precious metals and returned to Arala. Last week, Aralan forces crossed the border with Caspiana and seized a portion of Caspiana's territory containing numerous precious metal mines. Arala subsequently declared the seized territory to be part of Arala.
In response to this crisis, the president of the United States immediately negotiated an agreement with the government of Caspiana providing that U.S. forces would terminate Arala's occupation through military force and would establish a permanent base in the country. The president signed this agreement without prior consultation with or the receipt of authorization from the U.S. Congress. The president claimed that such consultation and approval were not necessary.
What type of agreement has the president negotiated with Caspiana? What do such agreements provide? Utilizing the opinion in Dole v. Carter, would a judicial challenge to the agreement by a member of Congress be successful? Why or why not?
What statute could the president utilize to respond to the crisis in Caspiana? When may this statute be utilized? What actions may the president take utilizing this statute?
Question 8. Would the marine carrier be liable in each of the following scenarios applying COGSA?
The failure of the ship to unload its cargo on time at the destination port due to a longshoreman's strike.
The failure of the ship to unload its cargo on time at the destination port due to a route change necessitated by engine failure occurring after the ship left the port of shipment.
A lawsuit by a seller and a buyer against a carrier for damage to goods filed 18 months after their delivery.
The failure of the ship to unload its cargo on time at the destination port due to its overloading at the port of shipment.
The failure of the ship to unload its cargo on time due to the threat of a terrorist attack at the port of destination.
A notice of damaged goods given by a buyer to the carrier 10 days after the buyer's receipt.
Question 9. Weigh the benefits and detriments of a business that establishes a global Internet presence.
Question 10. Global MegaBank (GMB) issued an irrevocable letter of credit on behalf of its customer Beer Importers of America, Inc. (BIA) for up to $150,000 covering shipments of "Belgian Trappist Ales" from "Beer of the World Distributor" (BWD). BWD subsequently presented its draft and commercial invoice with its name properly spelled as "Beers of the World Distributor." The submitted documents also referred to the shipment of "Belgian Abbey Ales" although the shipments themselves were of "Belgian Trappist Ales." GMB refused to accept these documents because of these discrepancies. GMB noted that use of the name "Trappist" is limited by Belgian law to 6 breweries operated by monastic orders in Belgium. By contrast, abbey ales are brewed by non-monastic entities under licenses to use the names of monasteries or religious icons in their titles. BWD claimed that GMB wrongfully dishonored the documents. BWD claimed the difference in names was excusable as a minor typographical error and that abbey and trappist ales are brewed in the same manner and thus so closely resemble one another as to excuse the discrepancy between the letter of credit and documents.
Who would prevail in litigation between GMB and BWD? Please explain your answer. Would the result be different if the court was to apply UCP 600 or the functional standard of compliance? Why or why not?