If you agree or disagree with their answers and explain why; Identify what way o

If you agree or disagree with their answers and explain why;
Identify what way of doing international business is involved in the other student’s case from picking one of the below ways:
Direct Contract (import/export of goods)
Foreign Agent Representation (hiring of a person or representative in the foreign host country)
Direct Foreign Investment (opening a branch office in the foreign host country by way of opening up a branch office or opening up a subsidiary)
Franchising (issuing a franchise to another to operate in the foreign host country)
Licensing (issuing a license to another to operate in a foreign host country)
None of the above (the other students case does not involve any of the forgoing ways of doing international business)
Explain how this litigation and legal risk involved in the other student’s case could have been avoided, mitigated or reduced.
Response 1.
1.Transatlantic Financing Corporation v United States (Page 16-17)
They did not agree on what would happen if the Suez Canal would close. Therefore the risk of that event was not planned for and the risks were not allocated. This played a major factor in the judge’s decision as he settled in favor of the United States stating that the additional fees and closure of the canal did not make the contract commercially impractical. If it were mentioned in the contract, it would be very impactful. It would add an additional protection for the carrier and protect them from additional fees while allowing the United States to avoid timely disputes over this matter.
Transatlantic, essentially, is arguing that they should not have had to change their route to allocate an unforeseen circumstance and pay additional fees to take a route that was not a contractual obligation. The court did not hold that the contract was impossible because it never explicitly nor indirectly stated anything about the usage of the Suez Canal. Transatlantic believed that the Suez route was the ideal route but never was it contractually mandatory. The court did not define the route as “impossible” because not only was the crew and vessel capable of making the altered trip route but Transatlantic was also equally capable of purchasing additional insurance.
It did not seem that the performance had ever been “impractical”, mainly because they were capable of covering any additional fees and the ship and crew were both healthy and capable. There was not much difficulty for them as they essentially were only concerned over the dispute regarding the fees.
Weather, or even a tsunami, would most likely play a factor in the court’s decision because in a logical argument extreme weather would compromise the route and safekeeping of the vessel. If the ship could not safely deliver products it would be impractical for them to continue. Additionally, a government order preventing the ship from leaving would most likely be respected by the court. Only because if the ship could not leave the port, it then would be impossible for them to finish out their job.
Response 2.
Gaskin v. Stumm Handel GMBH (pg. 17-18)
Question Answers:
Gaskin claimed that he was not bound by the forum selection clause in the contract he agreed too because he was never informed that upon execution of the contract, he was consenting to submit all controversies in the forum of West Germany (now Germany). He mentioned that if he had been made aware he would never have consented as the burden of the workload was far too much.
Parties to an international commercial arrangement are not required to translate documents for other parties. It was argued that because Gaskin could not understand German, he was not bound by the forum selection clause and the entire contract was therefore void. Having said that, the matter of the parties’ discomfort with a foreign language must be raised before the agreement or contract is signed.
When parties enter into multilingual contracts, it is important that they make their intentions clear for how the contracts will work in the event that there are differences between both language versions. To prevent misunderstandings and give clarity on the enforcement of the contract, the primary of dominant language, and other language-related provisions should be clearly stated in the contract. To make sure the contract complies with local laws and best industry practices, it may also be necessary to obtain legal counsel and/or expert consultation.
Note: The case pages to find the case and questions to the responses are next to the case titles use the chapter 1 upload to view the case and the answers to their questions.