Bus 410 (Winter 2025)- Sperow Midterm 1 Cases with
Complete Solutions | Already Graded A+ | New Update
2025
Case 1: Tarbert Trading Ltd. v. Cometals, inc - ANSWER TRADE OF GOODS
Cometals (NY, USA) purchased Kenyan Beans from Tarbert Trading Co. (UK) to
resale to Colombian buyer. Beans would be shipped from a warehouse in the
Netherlands to Colombia with Cometals acting as the middleman between Tarbert
and Colombian company. Colombian government required a certificate of origin
showing that the beans were from the European Economic Community (EEC).
Tarbert and Cometals collaborated to produce a fake/false certificate saying the
Kenyan beans were actually from Europe. Later Cometals refused the beans cause
of insect damage and Tarbert sued.
Issue: Will the Court enforce a contract where both parties knew the COI was
fraudulent?
DECISION: judge determined "in pari delicto" aka both Tarbert and Cometals are
at fault; court dismissed the complaint and counterclaim.
Reasoning: Agreements made in violation of the law are void
Case 2: Russian Entertainment Wholesale, Inc. v. Close-Up International, Inc. -
ANSWER Facts: Two Russian film studios (Defendants) granted rights to
produce and distribute DVDs of their films to licensees including Krupny which
could distribute its films only in Russian. Krupny sublicensed to Plaintiff Close-Up
, (NY Co), who sued for copyright infringement claiming it had exclusive right to
distribute Russian language-only versions of the films. Rusico was distributing
multi-lingual DVDs which were dubbed with subtitles. It was possible to turn off
subtitles and thus listen to their DVDs in Russian.
Issue: Did Defendants violate Plaintiff's license?
Holding: No
Reasoning: A licensee of a limited exclusive license may only seek relief for the
infringement of their exclusive rights. Here, P only had the rights to reproduce or
distribute Russian-language only films. D had the right to distribute multilingual
(dubbed versions) and versions with subtitles. The fact that the subtitles could be
turned off and films listened to Russian was not an infringement. *language of
license agreement is key
Case 3: Dayan v. McDonald's Corp. - ANSWER Facts: Plaintiff Dayan had an
exclusive contract to operate a McDonalds (Defendant) in Paris. After several years
of quality and cleanliness violations, McDonalds terminated the franchise and
Dayan sued to prevent termination.
Issue: Was the Franchise termination improper because McDonalds refused to
provide Plaintiff with a French-speaking operations assistant?
Holding: No, termination was proper, McDonalds fulfilled its part of the
agreement.
Reasoning: It did not take a McDonalds' trained French-speaking operational guide
to know that grease dripping from vents was not okay, that dogs could not be
Complete Solutions | Already Graded A+ | New Update
2025
Case 1: Tarbert Trading Ltd. v. Cometals, inc - ANSWER TRADE OF GOODS
Cometals (NY, USA) purchased Kenyan Beans from Tarbert Trading Co. (UK) to
resale to Colombian buyer. Beans would be shipped from a warehouse in the
Netherlands to Colombia with Cometals acting as the middleman between Tarbert
and Colombian company. Colombian government required a certificate of origin
showing that the beans were from the European Economic Community (EEC).
Tarbert and Cometals collaborated to produce a fake/false certificate saying the
Kenyan beans were actually from Europe. Later Cometals refused the beans cause
of insect damage and Tarbert sued.
Issue: Will the Court enforce a contract where both parties knew the COI was
fraudulent?
DECISION: judge determined "in pari delicto" aka both Tarbert and Cometals are
at fault; court dismissed the complaint and counterclaim.
Reasoning: Agreements made in violation of the law are void
Case 2: Russian Entertainment Wholesale, Inc. v. Close-Up International, Inc. -
ANSWER Facts: Two Russian film studios (Defendants) granted rights to
produce and distribute DVDs of their films to licensees including Krupny which
could distribute its films only in Russian. Krupny sublicensed to Plaintiff Close-Up
, (NY Co), who sued for copyright infringement claiming it had exclusive right to
distribute Russian language-only versions of the films. Rusico was distributing
multi-lingual DVDs which were dubbed with subtitles. It was possible to turn off
subtitles and thus listen to their DVDs in Russian.
Issue: Did Defendants violate Plaintiff's license?
Holding: No
Reasoning: A licensee of a limited exclusive license may only seek relief for the
infringement of their exclusive rights. Here, P only had the rights to reproduce or
distribute Russian-language only films. D had the right to distribute multilingual
(dubbed versions) and versions with subtitles. The fact that the subtitles could be
turned off and films listened to Russian was not an infringement. *language of
license agreement is key
Case 3: Dayan v. McDonald's Corp. - ANSWER Facts: Plaintiff Dayan had an
exclusive contract to operate a McDonalds (Defendant) in Paris. After several years
of quality and cleanliness violations, McDonalds terminated the franchise and
Dayan sued to prevent termination.
Issue: Was the Franchise termination improper because McDonalds refused to
provide Plaintiff with a French-speaking operations assistant?
Holding: No, termination was proper, McDonalds fulfilled its part of the
agreement.
Reasoning: It did not take a McDonalds' trained French-speaking operational guide
to know that grease dripping from vents was not okay, that dogs could not be
