Great Deal! Get Instant $10 FREE in Account on First Order + 10% Cashback on Every Order Order Now

You should be able to reach a conclusion by relying on approximately six to eight cases (though you may cite more) and law review articles, in addition to the text of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities...

1 answer below »
You should be able to reach a conclusion by relying on approximately six to eight cases (though you may cite more) and law review articles, in addition to the text of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act itself.
  1. Your memo should be approximately 7 to 10 double-spaced pages in length.
  1. Submit the assignment anonymously to the assignment drop box on TWEN no later than the beginning of class on Nov. 7.

To:
From:
Re:
Date:
Daniel Rodnos, a partner in your law firm, has asked you to research an issue presented in an international contract dispute that he is handling. Your client is Alpha Ltd. (Alpha) a stock corporation incorporated and doing business in Taral, a new nation state that seceded from the former Soviet Union by declaring its independence in 1992. Taral’s status as an independent nation has been recognized by many countries, including the United States. In contrast to the United States where natural resources are not owned by the government, the government of Taral owns all of the country’s natural resources, including its oil and gas deposits in certain areas of Taral, both on land and offshore. The state of Taral owns 51% of Alpha’s stock.
General counsel for Alpha has provided the following information regarding the dispute: six months ago, Alpha entered into a contract with Lodo, Inc. (Lodo). Lodo is a company incorporated and doing business in Gotham City, Columbia,[1] and is engaged in the construction of oilrigs. After lengthy negotiations in Columbia, the parties agreed that Lodo would construct and sell ten oilrigs to Alpha. The contract calls for delivery and installation of the oilrigs at designated locations off the coast of Taral during the month of December. Alpha agreed to pay the total amount due under the contract, $12.5 million, via irrevocable letter of credit to be established within three months after execution of the contract. The contract designated Gotham City Bank in Gotham City as the financial institution through which the letter of credit was to be made payable.
Alpha has not established the letter of credit, and does not plan on doing so in the future. Alpha explains that it found a third party who is willing to construct and install the oilrigs at a substantially lower price. Last week, Alpha informed Lodo that it is canceling the agreement, although Lodo has already begun to perform. In response, Lodo has threatened to sue Alpha in Columbia for breach of contract. It is clear from these facts that Lodo would prevail if this contract dispute were litigated on its merits, and general counsel for Alpha anticipates that Lodo will commence litigation within days. Mr. Rodnos advises the general counsel that the only defense on which Alpha could possibly rely in such litigation would be the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
Mr. Rodnos wants you to prepare a memorandum in which you discuss and decide whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act would provide your client with immunity from the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts. In preparing your memorandum, indicate avenues for further factual inquiry, if more facts are needed. You should be able to reach a conclusion by relying on approximately six to eight cases (though you may cite more) and law review articles, in addition to the text of the Act itself. Mr. Rodnos does not need you to research or write about breach of contract, minimum contacts or personal jurisdiction issues.
[1] For the purposes of this exercise assume that Gotham City is in the state of Columbia, and is the 51st state of the United States. It is under the jurisdiction of the United States Twelfth Circuit Court of Appeals. (This is a fictitious jurisdiction).
Answered Same Day Dec 21, 2021

Solution

David answered on Dec 21 2021
133 Votes
Law
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
Law
Introduction to Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 1976, is a law that limits the allegations and
court cases being held in USA for a foreign firm. In other words a foreign firm cannot be sued in
the US court but would have to be taken to the international court of justice. The FSI Act
established several procedures which need to be fulfilled by a plaintiff while filing allegations
against a foreign firm.
Sovereign immunity has been an integral part of the US laws. It began with the case
where in the judgment or verdict stated that a private party cannot sue or file a case against the
government of France. Also in the Schooner exchange v/s M, Fadon in the year 1812, the US
Supreme court gave a ruling that a foreign individual or firm cannot be sued for ownership
(Westlaw.com, 2012).
This act aims at providing immunity to a foreign public act and not a foreign private act.
So as far as the governments of a foreign nation are not involved in the allegations or the act
committed was not a public act the FSI Act does not provide protection to the alleged. But in
case of there being protection from the US courts, liabilities in the International court of justice
still prevails and this move cannot really
ing in complete immunity (Oyez US Supreme Court
Media, 2009).
The FSI Act is a jurisdictional statute. It states several conditions to be met for the
decision of whether it is possible to sue a foreign company or party or not and whether it be
considered as a public act or not. In case of a government being involved it does result in
consideration of it being a public act.
Law
But in several cases, where in the objective of the firm is to make profits, commitment of
torts or expropriation of property can lead to liability in the International Court of law. In this
way though the US law helps provide protection to foreign governments in case of a public act, it
does not mean that there is no liability for the party since the International court of law would
then take up the case (Westlaw.com, 2012).
Background and objective analysis
In the given case, there is a clear
each of contract, but the grounds are that there was a
cheaper contract offered. As a US based company undertakes to take up the building of 10 oil
igs, and has also started working on it, it becomes essential that the contract be recognized. The
aising of a letter of credit would have confirmed this.
But since the letter of credit was not raised, it clearly meant that the contract was still not
formed since the consideration element was not yet completed or complied with. So the foreign
firm is not completely liable for it. Yet as a contract has been undertaken and entered into, it Is
not right for the foreign firm to just state that there is another contractor that is providing cheaper
ates (Westlaw.com, 2012).
It is essential that the parties sit and discuss as well as renegotiate the rates since the work
has already started. Moreover it is also quite possible that the firms settle it through making a
payment for the completed part of work only. In these ways as well the case can be settled. Yet
as a case has been filed, and a tort of
each of contract has been committed, there are multiple
considerations to be made, especially with regard to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
(Oyez US Supreme Court Media, 2009).
Law
Moreover as the government is also a stakeholder in the company and owns 51% of the
shares, then it is considered as a public act, thus leading to the implementation of the Foreign
Sovereign Immunities Act. In this way it can be quite possible that the US courts do not take up
this case and it is...
SOLUTION.PDF

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

More Questions »

Submit New Assignment

Copy and Paste Your Assignment Here