Featured Quizzes
User Quizzes
Create Quiz
Data and Charts
Word Search
Badges and Games
About JetPunk
Message Board
Dark Mode
International Commercial Law - Introduction to Key Themes - Statistics
General Stats
-
This quiz has been taken 10 times
9 since last reset
- The average score is 2 of 4
Answer Stats
| Question | Answer | % Correct |
|---|---|---|
| MotoCorp, a Japanese motorcycle parts manufacturer, sells its products to FastCycles, a U.S.-based distributor in California. FastCycles incorporates MotoCorp’s parts into motorcycles that are sold throughout the U.S., including Texas. MotoCorp provides FastCycles with specific instructions to distribute its products in key U.S. markets, including Texas. A motorcyclist in Texas is injured due to a defective part and sues MotoCorp in a Texas court. MotoCorp argues it has no presence in Texas and only sold its parts to FastCycles in California. What factor will most likely determine whether the Texas court has personal jurisdiction over MotoCorp? | Whether MotoCorp’s parts reached Texas customers through the stream of commerce, and MotoCorp took additional actions purposefully directing its products toward Texas by instructing its distributor to target the Texas market. | 80%
|
| TechCo, a software company based in Germany, sells its products worldwide, including to customers in the United States through its website. A California customer purchases software from TechCo, but the software causes significant damage to the customer’s computer. The customer sues TechCo in a California court. TechCo argues that it has no offices or employees in the U.S., and all sales are processed through its website hosted in Germany. Which factor is most likely to establish that the California court has jurisdiction over TechCo? | The fact that TechCo made substantial sales to customers in California, which were purposefully directed at the U.S. market. | 60%
|
| A Spanish wine producer, VinoEspaña, sells wine to a U.S. distributor, WineWorld, headquartered in California. WineWorld markets and sells VinoEspaña’s products throughout the U.S. When a U.S. customer in Oregon becomes ill after consuming a contaminated bottle of VinoEspaña wine, they sue both WineWorld and VinoEspaña in an Oregon court. VinoEspaña argues that it never directly sold wine to Oregon and only dealt with WineWorld in California. What is the most relevant factor in determining whether the Oregon court can assert jurisdiction over VinoEspaña? | Whether VinoEspaña purposefully availed itself of the U.S. market through its relationship with WineWorld. | 40%
|
| Anna, a resident of New York, buys expensive jewelry from Xavier, a resident of France, through an online auction. The auction website is based in France, and all payments are processed through a French bank. Anna receives the jewelry but claims it is defective and files a lawsuit against Xavier in a New York court. Xavier was never personally served in the U.S., and the only notice he received was through an email. What is the strongest argument Xavier can make to challenge the New York court’s jurisdiction over him? | Xavier was not physically present in New York, and personal service was not properly executed. | 40%
|
No matching quizzes found
Score Distribution
Percent of People with Each Score
Percentile by Number Answered
Your Score History
You have not taken this quiz since the last reset