Test Bank for International Business Law and Its Environment, 10th Edition

Test Bank for International Business Law and Its Environment, 10th Edition CASE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Tarbert Trading Ltd. v. Cometals, Inc. 1. Import/export transactions usually require much more documentation than domestic transactions. These include detailed invoices, packing lists, shipping and insurance documents, and specialized certificates. In this case, a “certificate of origin” was required by the government of Columbia before the goods could be imported. Does it refer to the country from which the goods were shipped or where they were grown or made? Why do you think Columbia required a certificate of origin? What is its purpose? Answer: The CO refers to the country where the goods were grown or made, not from where it was shipped. It identifies for the buyer where the goods come from, so if goods from Country A have a better reputation than those from Country B, the buyer will know which goods it is receiving. 2. Suppose that the beans had arrived in Columbia and were then stopped by Columbian customs authorities because of a fraudulent certificate. What do you think might have happened to the beans? What would the risk have been to Cometals and Tarbert? What if the Columbian buyer had already paid for the beans? Answer: They would have been impounded, i.e., not allowed to enter the country. Cometals and Tarbert likely would face fines and perhaps criminal punishment. If the buyer had already paid for the beans, the buyer could sue in Columbian court to recover damages as the buyer did not get what he bargained and paid for. 3. Evaluate and discuss the conduct of Cometals and Tarbert. Fraudulent documentation is not uncommon in international trade, especially when parties do not have a history of business together. What are the lessons to be learned by all parties? Answer: Their conduct was illegal and unethical. You need to know the party you are dealing with. If that is difficult or impossible, the risk is greater and may lead to not doing business with them. Agreements protecting yourself are very important in international business. Russian Entertainment Wholesale, Inc. v. Close-Up International, Inc. 1. What are the “limited exclusive” rights granted to the licensees in this case? Answer: Each has the right to copy and distribute DVDs of the film. Krupny could distribute the films in the Russian language, and Ruscico could distribute dubbed or subtitled films in various other languages. Chapter 1: Introduction to International Business 2. What is the difference between the rights granted to the plaintiff and those granted to the defendants? Answer: The language to be used in the films they distribute. Krupny can use only the Russian language and Ruscico can use any non-Russian language. 3. Do you agree or disagree with the court’s interpretation of the license agreements? Answer: The court interprets what the licenses provide; it cannot add other language to the agreement. 4. What does this case tell you about negotiating and drafting a licensing agreement? Answer: You must think how the language used in the licensing agreement will apply in practice. Be sure you have covered every possible scenario—especially true where the medium may change—theatre films, streaming videos, use on tablets, phones, computers, etc