The Assignment answer must be no more than 2,000 words in content (including footnotes). A penalty, of a reduction in mark, may be imposed if this word limit is exceeded. It must be type written (double spaced on one side of A4 paper), a font size of not less than 12 must be used and a word count must be noted on it. An Assignment answer that does not have a word count noted on it may not be marked.
Please note that the use of footnotes is preferred over the use of endnotes. However, footnotes should not include content that is essential to the reasoning on an issue. Marks will only be given to the content of the body of the essay and generally will not be given to the content of footnotes.
1 The extent to which the Assignment answer identifies relevant legal issues and sets out sound legal arguments in support, including applying the law to relevant facts.
2 The extent to which the Assignment answer demonstrates research into relevant topics of the course, including having references to applicable statutory provisions of the enacted law and any applicable unenacted case law.
3 Whether the Assignment answer is easy to read and understand. Ease of reading can be achieved, for example, by the use of relevant headings and sub-headings. Assignment & Instructions 2018.doc
State D and State E have a common border. State D has ratified the Geneva Convention on the humanitarian treatment of the victims of war whereas State E has not. State D has entered into a Treaty establishing commercial relations with State Z and extending the most favoured nation status to State Z. State D has a Treaty with State V that establishes the international border between State V and State D’s eastern region.
Identify the rule that applies and explain why which Treaties will continue to have effect in the changed territory of State D if:
(a) State D ceases to exist and is replaced by States I, J, K and L?
(b) State D cedes (gives up) its eastern region to State E?
Mr Rwas a national of StateZ and had worked in StateY as a consultant for that State’s national railroad from2000to 2017. StateY’s government is a one-party socialist dictatorship.
Whilst riding on a train in StateY in March 2018, the train was attacked by a group of terrorists. The terroriststook control of the train and Mr Rwas trapped on board. Ratherthan negotiating with the terrorists and trying to rescue the passengers from the train, the government of StateY strafed the train with military aircraft and this resulted in the death of all on board.
StateY has received a number of complaints from relatives of Mr Rand StateY has agreed to consent to the formation of an international tribunal to determine if StateY is responsible for Mr R’s death.
You are required to decide what the decision of the international tribunal will be as to whether StateY is responsible for Mr R’s death and therefore whether it is liable to pay any compensation to the relatives of Mr R, and give brief reasons.
Zee Co, a shipping company headquartered in State Z, signed a contract with Em Co, a company headquartered and incorporated in State M, to transport goods for Em Co from State M to State X. No provisions were made in the contract about where disputes would be settled or what law would be used to resolve them.
As Zee Co’s ship delivering the goods was entering the harbour of the capital city of State X, the ship blew up, destroying all of Em Co’s goods. Em Co has brought legal action in State X. Zee Co argues in defence that the Court in State X does not have jurisdiction to hear this dispute.
(a) Does the Court in State X have jurisdiction to hear this dispute?
(b) What law should be applied to this dispute? Discuss. 4 marks
Assignment & Instructions 2018.doc
CD Car Co, an Australian based car company, has manufactured and sold cars in Australia for many years. For the last 10 years the Australian Vehicle Standards Board has required all car manufacturers in Australia to place air bags in their cars and to place strategically located warning signs advising about the danger of an air bag causing possible injury in the event of an accident.
CD Car Co has recently expanded its car sales into New Guinea where the same strict warnings about the possible risks of injury in using a car air bag are not required.
Mr. B recently purchased a new CD car in New Guinea and after a short time he was involved in a car accident, which was not his fault. The force of the accident caused the air bags to detonate, as they were expected to do, but the force of the detonation was much greater than expected due to an incorrect valve being placed on the air bags in the car involved in the accident. This defect was in the manufacturing design of the car.
As a result of the accident Mr. B suffered severe facial injuries and he now wants to take legal action in an Australian Court against CD Car Co as, even though New Guinea law does recognise defective product rules, there is a much higher limit on liability claims possible in Australia when compared to New Guinea.
CD Car Co requests that the Australian Court dismiss the legal action.
You are required to decide on how the Australian Court is likely to rule on this dispute as to whether it will find that the Australian Court is the better Court to hear this dispute or not.
Gazda and Monda both manufacture cars in State J. They recently entered into a non-competition agreement with the approval of State J’s government.
The non-competition agreement provides that (a) Gazda will sell its vehicles in the US and that Monda will not and (b) that Monda will sell its cars in Australia and Gazda will not.
As a result of this agreement Gazda quickly builds up a significant interest in the US car market and Monda does the same in Australia. Also, after the signing of this agreement FR Car Company, a US company, finds it very difficult to obtain Monda produced vehicles for importation into the US and as a result it has commenced legal action in a US Court claiming that both the Gazda and Monda have violated the US Sherman Act.
Gazda has argued in its defence that the US Court should dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
How should the US Court rule in respect to the Sherman Act issue against both Gazda and Monda?
4 marks Assignment & Instructions 2018.doc
Thompson Ltd publishes some textbooks in Australia and so it owns the copyright in these textbooks. Dodgy Enterprises Plc, an English company purchased some copies of these textbooks in England and has tried to sell them in Australia at a profit.
Thompson Ltd has sued Dodgy Enterprises Plc for infringement of copyright over the sales of these books by Dodgy Enterprises Plc in Australia. Dodgy Enterprises Plc claims that as the books were purchased legally in England it is entitled to sell them wherever it wishes.
You are to decide this copyright dispute between Thompson Ltd and Dodgy Enterprises Plc. Who will win and why?
Eager Ltd in State P receives a wide variety of government assistance from the State P government (including tax breaks, low interest financing, and technical assistance) that State P offers to all domestic enterprises within its territory to assist in helping its local businesses improve export performance. Increased subsidies are paid if export volumes increase. Eager Ltd manufactures mobile phones that it recently began to sell in State R.
Fone Pty Ltd in State R manufactures similar mobile phones and it has begun to lose a lot of its market share to Eager. State P and State R are both WTO member States.
Fone Pty Ltd would like State R to impose a countervailing duty to offset the subsidies received by Eager from State P, and Fone Pty Ltd has asked the State R Customs Service (which is responsible for imposing such duties) to do so.
After making an investigation, the Customs Service refused to impose any duties. Fone Pty Ltd has appealed to a Court in State R against this decision.
Should the Court in State R overrule the decision of the Customs Service? Explain citing any case authority you think may be relevant.
State A, a WTO member State, imposes a 25 percent tax on sales of ‘cola’ soft drinks. All other soft drinks are taxed at a 5 percent rate. Cola soft drinks make up 70 percent of the soft drink market in State A and all of the cola soft drinks are imported. The non-cola soft drinks are all manufactured locally.
State U, another WTO member State, has complained to State A that its tax on cola soft drinks violates the 1994 GATT’s national treatment rule. State A disagrees. State U has now asked the WTO to establish a panel to resolve this dispute.
How should the WTO rule on this dispute? Explain.
2 marks Assignment & Instructions 2018.doc
The Buyer and Seller have a valid contract for the supply of large mining machinery. The contract is governed by the Convention for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). The contract provides that the mining machinery is to be delivered by 30 March.
The Seller is late in delivering this mining machinery.
On 8 April the Buyer writes to the Seller and states “Need the mining machinery urgently. The last date that I will accept delivery is 8 May.” The Seller does not deliver the mining machinery until 30 May.
Assuming that the late delivery of the mining machinery is not a fundamental breach is the Buyer still obliged to purchase the mining machinery?
The Seller in State A contracted to deliver 2,000 barrels of oil to the Buyer in State B for $120,000, with the price payable upon delivery. When the oil arrived, 1,970 barrels complied fully with the contract description, however, 30 barrels were contaminated and unacceptable. The Seller admits that he is responsible for this breach. At the time of delivery, oil was available in the local market for a price of $75 a barrel.
Assuming both States A and B are signatories to the Convention for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), what net payment is due to the Seller?
What if this was a case of force majeure that caused the contamination? Would your answer change? Briefly explain your answer.
Total marks = 30 marks
TO GET THIS OR ANY OTHER ASSIGNMENT DONE FOR YOU FROM SCRATCH, PLACE A NEW ORDER HERE