Question one
K Company has restricted the European based from using the operating system to develop their computer brand. It denied them the right of sharing the copyright and patents of its software. It thus meant that it was the only company in the market trading the computers using that particular operating system. The company’s action violates article 81 and 82 by not a binding to set regulation of the agreement. Article 81 and 82 of the European Community Treaty are agreements that bind the activities or transaction-taking place between two nations. According to article 81, it states that all parties to the agreement are subject to observe fair competition therefore should not prevent or restrict their competitors from the trade.
K company went ahead to control the production of the computer by refusing to share the copyrights. It thus meant that the computing was breaching the agreement since it was using terms and condition, which does offer equal opportunities to the other parties. It also violated article 82 such that it stands out to dominate the market offering no chances for other potential producers or competitors to enter into the trade. This is evident whereby it imposed trading condition and limiting them the rights of producing computers using its operating system software.
K Company cannot be charged with violating the American anti-trust laws because the courts has not subject matter jurisdiction. This is due to the fact the actions of K Company did not intend to affect the commerce of America. In addition, the company had minimal conduct with the stipulated forum. According to metro industries v. Sammi, the court used the rule of reason to offer a verdict terming the defendant as innocent.
Question two
The bill of lading is a proof enough to entitle the two buyers to sue the concern parties for loss of their cargoes. It thus means that Ishmael is immune to any allegations since the bill of lading serves as carrier’s receipts, contract for the specific carriage and a title document. Both Hispaniola and Starbuck had the diligence in ensuring the ship is seaworthy by keeping adequate machinery in place to curb any emergence of piracy or any other casualty. They both had the duty to operate the ship and properly equipping it with necessary security measure that might have prevented the loss. They also had the diligence of carefully taking care of the loading and handing the goods carried.
The two-buyer intention or action to sue the two parties is driven by the fact that the entitled to a compensation of the carried goods since they were lost due to the neglect of duty by Hispaniola and Starbuck. They had the obligation of staying sober for the security of the carried goods. Failure to deliver the goods to the destination is a legal manner that requires to be settled in court by the two people bond by the agreement.
Question three
According to GATT, it demands that all member states should take into account the equal application of tariff rules. In the treaty it encourages all members to carry their business or activities on an equal ground. This means that all states are require observing the wellbeing of the other party in the same field of business. It therefore means that State G is justified to impose antidumping duties on Snicker. On the other hand, snicker has the legal right to cut down on the cost of its products as a marketing strategy with having to inconvenience their entire operation of the other competitors. Imposing antidumping duties on snicker would help the state G to overcome the losses caused by the reduction of cost be Snickers Company. It would prevent the company from eliminating the other competitors from the business by incurring losses. According to Nippon steel corp.v. Us the antidumping duties were imposed to prevent the local industries from being affected by the dumping of the tins in the market by changing their prices. The court rule out in favor of the United State and the prices were reinstated. It should be the same case to the situation of both state F and G. The court is obliged to determine the extend effect of the action of snicker company and reinstate the prices.
Question four
The Chinese government should consider the request of its manufacturers because Thailand is standing out as a direct competitor to the local manufacturers. It simply means that the Thai company is posing a threat to the local manufacturers’ interest or is threatening to lead to critical prejudice to any other interested parties, which is a member of world trade organization. The subsidies depending on the Thai company performance, it qualifies to be classified as prohibited. Another major factor that would drive china into accepting the request of local manufacturers is the fact that it is impairing the benefits that are to be realized or enjoyed by manufacturers of china. The action of Thai company is causing the trade distortion in china and the government should take the initiative of imposing a countervailing duty on products exported to China by Natural Hair Co. Agreeing to the local manufacturers request would give them a chance to expand their market using the country’s resources.
Question five
Regal’s decision to ask an English court to compel Plebeian to turn over corporate documents showing the extent of the conspiracy between him and the other seven competitors would be implemented by the court because it is in accordance to the anti-trust laws. The agreement between the seven competitors to eliminate Regal in the market was intended to affect the United State commerce and has violated the Sherman Act.
The English court is not justified to issue injunctions that bars regal from continuing with the suit because according to the international law comity and fairness must prevail. It thus gives the English court no other choice rather than assuming extraterritorial jurisdiction. The agreement gives all the member states the chance to conduct the trading activities in an equal and fair manner.
The action of the other competitor of England asking the English court to enjoin Regal from continuing with its suit in the U.S ids doomed to fail because the antitrust act encompasses the rights for Regal to get justice of the losses incurred due to the action of its competitors. This is because Sherman Act was violated and this was done with the intention of affecting the United States.
Plebeian would have to honor the court order and settle the damages cause by their actions. However, to minimize cost or judgment it is suppose to pay, it would be prudent to distribute the cost to the rest of competitor who took part in the conspiracy.
