Bus 410 Midterm #1 (Sperow) Questions And Correct
Answers (Verified Answers) | Already Graded A+ |
New Update 2025
Tarbert Trading, Ltd. V. Cometals, Inc.
(deals with trade) - ANSWER Cometals buys beans from Tarbert (beans
originally from kanya). Cometals wants to sell to a company in Columbia but
Colombia required a certificate of origin issued by a Chamber of Commerce.
Cometals colluded with Tarbert on wording of certificate. However, Cometals
refuses beans because of insect damage... Tarbert sues. Cometals states contract
should be void because Tarbert committed fraud.
IMPORTANCE:
- No Certificate of Origin
- Trading companies (Tarbert) committed fraudulent documents and could not
successfully sue
- Against public policy
Russian Entertainment Wholesale, Inc. v.
Close-Up International, Inc.
(deals with International licensing agreements) - ANSWER Russian film
company granted limited rights to distributors. Close-Up could only play films in
original Russian language. Ruscico could distribute multi- lingual versions of the
same films but with subtitles. No one realized you could just turn off subtitles
,Close-Up brought this action against Ruscico for damages for copyright
infringement of Russian language only films.
IMPORTANCE:
- No grounds for copyright infringement because Ruscico only distributed multi-
lingual DVDs with subtitles.
- Still in scope of limited licensee agreement
- protected by licensee agreement
Dayan v. McDonald's Corp.
(deals with international franchise agreements) - ANSWER Dayan received
rights to operate a McDonalds in Paris. Dayan signed licensee agreement that
stated he had to comply with certain cleanliness rules. Dayan ran a filthy
operation and after multiple failures of cleanliness inspections McDonalds
terminated franchise with Dayan. Dayan Sues under not having assistance to
provide a clean restaurant and needed a French-speaking to help clarify. It did not
help, evidence was compelling.
IMPORTANCE:
- McDonald's held true to its contract and Dayan violated agreements
In re Union Carbide Corporation
Gas Plant Disaster at Bhopal
(deals with challenges of doing business with developing countries) - ANSWER
UCC is a large chemical company. UCIL is in India and is a subsidiary of UCC. UCC
issued a license agreement saying that UCIL could build a new plant in Bhopal.
Almost all workers on job were Indian.
, Plant explodes killing many people (mostly Indian People). India files complaint
against UCC in New York. UCC said all proceedings should be held in India.
IMPORTANCE:
- The doctrine of forum non conveniens:
(a case is properly heard in the courts of more than one country, it should be
heard in the country with the greater interest or most convenient)
- Everything about case pointed towards court in India... so it was held in India. It
was convenient!
Transatlantic Financing Corp. v. United States
(deals with common risk with international business) - ANSWER US contracted
with Transatlantic to transport wheat from Texas to Iran. In contract it did not
state where the route needed to take place. Transatlantic had to avoid war going
on in Israel and Egypt so they went the long way which ended up costing 14%
more than originally planned.
Transatlantic sued for added expenses. They did not win.
IMPORTANCE:
- alternate route did not make the contract commercially impracticable, (and
therefore not legally impossible) to perform.
- Contract didn't have a mandatory route
- US is protected by contract
Gaskin v. Stumm Handel
Answers (Verified Answers) | Already Graded A+ |
New Update 2025
Tarbert Trading, Ltd. V. Cometals, Inc.
(deals with trade) - ANSWER Cometals buys beans from Tarbert (beans
originally from kanya). Cometals wants to sell to a company in Columbia but
Colombia required a certificate of origin issued by a Chamber of Commerce.
Cometals colluded with Tarbert on wording of certificate. However, Cometals
refuses beans because of insect damage... Tarbert sues. Cometals states contract
should be void because Tarbert committed fraud.
IMPORTANCE:
- No Certificate of Origin
- Trading companies (Tarbert) committed fraudulent documents and could not
successfully sue
- Against public policy
Russian Entertainment Wholesale, Inc. v.
Close-Up International, Inc.
(deals with International licensing agreements) - ANSWER Russian film
company granted limited rights to distributors. Close-Up could only play films in
original Russian language. Ruscico could distribute multi- lingual versions of the
same films but with subtitles. No one realized you could just turn off subtitles
,Close-Up brought this action against Ruscico for damages for copyright
infringement of Russian language only films.
IMPORTANCE:
- No grounds for copyright infringement because Ruscico only distributed multi-
lingual DVDs with subtitles.
- Still in scope of limited licensee agreement
- protected by licensee agreement
Dayan v. McDonald's Corp.
(deals with international franchise agreements) - ANSWER Dayan received
rights to operate a McDonalds in Paris. Dayan signed licensee agreement that
stated he had to comply with certain cleanliness rules. Dayan ran a filthy
operation and after multiple failures of cleanliness inspections McDonalds
terminated franchise with Dayan. Dayan Sues under not having assistance to
provide a clean restaurant and needed a French-speaking to help clarify. It did not
help, evidence was compelling.
IMPORTANCE:
- McDonald's held true to its contract and Dayan violated agreements
In re Union Carbide Corporation
Gas Plant Disaster at Bhopal
(deals with challenges of doing business with developing countries) - ANSWER
UCC is a large chemical company. UCIL is in India and is a subsidiary of UCC. UCC
issued a license agreement saying that UCIL could build a new plant in Bhopal.
Almost all workers on job were Indian.
, Plant explodes killing many people (mostly Indian People). India files complaint
against UCC in New York. UCC said all proceedings should be held in India.
IMPORTANCE:
- The doctrine of forum non conveniens:
(a case is properly heard in the courts of more than one country, it should be
heard in the country with the greater interest or most convenient)
- Everything about case pointed towards court in India... so it was held in India. It
was convenient!
Transatlantic Financing Corp. v. United States
(deals with common risk with international business) - ANSWER US contracted
with Transatlantic to transport wheat from Texas to Iran. In contract it did not
state where the route needed to take place. Transatlantic had to avoid war going
on in Israel and Egypt so they went the long way which ended up costing 14%
more than originally planned.
Transatlantic sued for added expenses. They did not win.
IMPORTANCE:
- alternate route did not make the contract commercially impracticable, (and
therefore not legally impossible) to perform.
- Contract didn't have a mandatory route
- US is protected by contract
Gaskin v. Stumm Handel
