BUS 410 KORDOS MIDTERM 1 EXAM QUESTIONS WITH VERIFIED SOLUTIONS LATEST UPDATE 2026

BUS 410 KORDOS MIDTERM 1 EXAM QUESTIONS WITH VERIFIED SOLUTIONS LATEST UPDATE 2026 Gaskin v Stumm Handel GmbH - Answers Background: US citizen entered employment contract with German firm written in German and later claimed he did not understand the language. Court reasoning: Plaintiff was not an ignorant consumer and terms were explained in English so language barrier does not invalidate agreement. Decision: Court dismissed the action and held the contract valid. Coker International Inc v Burlington Industries Inc - Answers Background: Coker contracted to buy textile looms to resell in South America and paid a non refundable deposit but later could not obtain import licenses and wanted refund. Court reasoning: Contract clearly stated deposit non refundable and did not allocate risk to Burlington; sales to developing countries are inherently risky. Decision: Judgment upheld for Burlington and Coker assumed the risk. Bernina Distributors v Bernina Sewing Machine Co - Answers Background: Importer bought machines in Swiss francs and imposed surcharge when currency changed claiming cost increase under contract. Court reasoning: Contract did not include exchange rate as cost increase and importer assumed risk of currency fluctuation; contract still profitable. Decision: Judgment affirmed for Distributor. Tarbert Trading Ltd v Cometals Inc - Answers Background: Parties knowingly used false certificate of origin to show beans were from EU when actually from Kenya and later had dispute. Court reasoning: Agreement required fraud or forgery and violated public policy so court will not enforce illegal contracts. Decision: Complaint and counterclaim dismissed. Dayan v McDonalds Corp - Answers Background: French franchisee failed to meet quality service and cleanliness standards required by franchise agreement and McDonalds terminated contract. Court reasoning: McDonalds provided operational assistance and plaintiff failed to comply with standards. Decision: Judgment affirmed for McDonalds. Anton Las v PSA Antwerp NV - Answers Background: Belgian law required cross border employment contracts to be written only in Dutch and employee challenged English contract. Court reasoning: Protecting language is legitimate but law must be proportionate and not restrict EU freedoms excessively. Decision: Requirement of exclusive Dutch language violated EU law. In re Union Carbide Gas Plant Disaster at Bhopal - Answers Background: Gas leak in India caused massive deaths and injuries and Indian government sued US parent company in US court. Court reasoning: Most evidence witnesses and regulatory interest were in India and Indian law would apply. Decision: Case dismissed under forum non conveniens and should be heard in India. Urgenda Foundation v Netherlands - Answers Background: NGO sued Dutch government for failing to take sufficient action on climate change claiming violation of human rights. Court reasoning: States have obligation to protect right to life and must contribute to limiting global warming. Decision: Government ordered to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25 percent. The Paquette Habana - Answers Background: US Navy seized unarmed fishing vessels during war and sold them as prizes. Court reasoning: Customary international law exempts coastal fishing vessels from capture and international law is part of US law when no conflicting rule. Decision: Supreme Court reversed and vessels protected. United States v Campbell - Answers Background: Australian citizen working on US funded project abroad charged with bribery outside US. Court reasoning: Protective jurisdiction allows prosecution of crimes that affect US government interests even if committed abroad. Decision: Motion to dismiss denied. Vedanta Resources PLC v Lungowe - Answers Background: Zambian residents sued UK parent company for environmental damage caused by subsidiary. Court reasoning: Parent company may owe duty of care if it exercises control or holds itself out as responsible. Decision: Case allowed to proceed in UK courts. Eazy Electronics v LG Electronics - Answers Background: Puerto Rican company sued LG in US despite arbitration clause requiring disputes to be resolved in Seoul. Court reasoning: Federal policy favors arbitration and inconvenience is not enough to invalidate clause. Decision: Court dismissed case and compelled arbitration. Collett v Olympus Medical Systems Corp - Answers Background: Plaintiff alleged injury from colonoscope manufactured in Japan and sued in Georgia. Court reasoning: Company had sufficient contacts through sales and targeting US market and due process satisfied. Decision: Motion to dismiss denied and jurisdiction proper. Aquatherm GmbH v Renaissance Associates - Answers Background: German manufacturer argued no personal jurisdiction in Indiana after product failure. Court reasoning: Interactive website and warranty showed expectation of contact with Indiana and fairness supported jurisdiction. Decision: Court affirmed specific personal jurisdiction. Lee v Young Life - Answers Background: Student drowned at camp in Canada and parents sued in Colorado. Court reasoning: Canada was adequate alternative forum and Canadian law applied; private and public factors favored Canada. Decision: Case dismissed under forum non conveniens. Noble House v Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London - Answers Background: Yacht owner sued in Texas despite forum selection clause specifying England. Court reasoning: Strong presumption in favor of enforcing forum selection clauses and plaintiff failed to show unreasonableness. Decision: Case dismissed and clause enforced. Finnish Fur Sales Co v Juliette Shulof Furs Inc - Answers Background: US buyer defaulted on purchases at Finnish auction and seller sued under Finnish law. Court reasoning: Choice of law clause valid and Finland had substantial relationship; court can apply foreign law. Decision: Defendant held personally liable. Worldwide Volkswagen Corp v Woodson - Answers Background: New York distributor sued in Oklahoma after accident involving car sold in New York. Court reasoning: Defendant had no presence or purposeful activity in Oklahoma and lacked minimum contacts. Decision: No personal jurisdiction in Oklahoma. International Shoe Co v Washington - Answers Background Company based outside Washington was required to pay unemployment taxes in Washington and argued it was not subject to jurisdiction there, Court held that a state may exercise jurisdiction if the defendant has minimum contacts with the forum such that maintaining the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, Decision jurisdiction was proper in Washington International business - Answers Includes cross border movement of goods services people money technology and intellectual property and involves firms of all sizes operating in global markets Commercial risk - Answers Risk that one party fails to perform as promised in a transaction which can lead to costly arbitration or litigation and must be allocated in contracts Transport risk - Answers Risk of delay damage loss or expense during shipment of goods by air sea or land and depends on when risk passes between parties Currency risk - Answers Risk arising from exchange rate fluctuations and currency controls that may affect value of transactions and ability to move money Business environment - Answers Policies, laws, regulations, and institutions both formal and informal that govern private sector activity in a country Investment climate - Answers Broader conditions including infrastructure political stability labor markets and economic predictability that affect investment decisions Direct exporting - Answers Firm handles its own marketing sales shipping and payment collection in foreign markets Indirect exporting - Answers Firm uses intermediaries such as export management companies or trading companies to handle export activities Tariffs - Answers Taxes imposed on imported goods to generate revenue or restrict imports Quotas - Answers Quantitative limits on the amount of goods that can be imported into a country Embargoes - Answers Complete or near complete bans on trade with a specific country Intellectual property rights - Answers Legal rights resulting from intellectual activity including patents trademarks copyrights and trade secrets Licensing - Answers Agreement where owner of intellectual property grants rights to another party for a fee or royalty Franchising - Answers Business arrangement where franchisor licenses trademarks and business model to franchisee in exchange for fees and control over operations Foreign direct investment - Answers Ownership or control of productive assets in a foreign country involving long term business operations Foreign branch - Answers Extension of a company in another country that is not a separate legal entity and parent is fully liable Foreign subsidiary - Answers Separate legal entity formed under foreign law but owned and controlled by parent company Joint venture - Answers Cooperative business arrangement between two or more companies sharing profits risks and control