Government of H entered into a contract with an arms dealer known as R to buy weapons. When the government was changed in H then the government decided to reduce military size which resulted in deterioration of relationship with R. The government H refused to honor the contract by purchasing more arms and paying lesser amount for the same. R filed a case in the federal district court of the US to recover the damages. To find: the doctrine of deference that leads the U.S Court to dismiss R’s case.

Question

Want to see the full answer?

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 11, Problem 3RE

Summary Introduction

Case summary: Government of H entered into a contract with an arms dealer known as R to buy weapons. When the government was changed in H then the government decided to reduce military size which resulted in deterioration of relationship with R. The government H refused to honor the contract by purchasing more arms and paying lesser amount for the same. R filed a case in the federal district court of the US to recover the damages.

To find:the doctrine of deference that leads the U.S Court to dismiss R’s case.

Expert Solution & Answer

Want to see the full answer?

Check out a sample textbook solution

See solution

Students have asked these similar questions

The U.S. Pineapple industry alleged that producers of canned pineapple from the Philippines were selling their canned pineapple in the United states for less than its fair market value (dumping). In addition to canned pineapple, the Philippine producers exported other products used as pineapple juice and juice concentrate. these products used separate parts of the same fresh pineapple used for the canned pineapple. All these products shared raw material costs with the canned fruit, according to the producers' own financial records. To determine fair value and anti-dumping duties, the pineapple industry argued that a court should calculate the Philippine producers' cost of production and allocate a portion of the shared fruit costs to the canned fruit. The result of this allocation showed that more than 90 percent of the canned fruit sales were below the cost of production. Is this a reasonable approach to determining the production costs and fair market value of canned pineapple…

On October 1, 2021, Garcia Exporters, a manufacturer in India, made a contract to sell 200,000 tie-dyed beach chairs to Lesh Imports, a NY corporation, for “$300,000(US), CIF New York, shipment, direct or indirect, to arrive on or before February 1, 2021.” The contract required Lesh Imports to obtain a Letter of Credit “issued or confirmed by a reputable N.Y. commercial bank.” Lesh intended to resell the beach chairs to customers in the northeastern United States in the beginning of March 2022. On October 10, 2021, Hart National Bank (NY) issued a Letter of Credit for the benefit of Garcia in the amount of $300,000(US), to expire on November 30, 2021. The Letter of Credit required presentment of a Bill of Lading showing a shipment “to arrive NY on or before February 1, 2021.” On October 17, 2021, Garcia delivered the 200,000 beach chairs to Weir Shipping Lines in India for shipment to NY on the container ship “Of Fools.” The Bill of Lading, dated October 17, 2021, stated that the ship…

Three banks that are wholly owned by the Republic of Costa Rica had issued promissory notes, payable in U.S. dollars in New York City. The notes are now in default due solely to actions of the Costa Rican government, which had suspended all payments of external debt because of escalating economic problems. Efforts by Costa Rica to curb foreign debt payment difficulties conflicted with U.S. policy for debt resolution procedure as conducted under the auspices of the International Monetary Fund. A syndicate of U.S. banks brought suit to recover on the promissory notes. The three Costa Rican banks assert the act of state doctrine as a defense. Should the doctrine apply? Explain.