Featured Quizzes
User Quizzes
Create Quiz
Data and Charts
Badges and Games
About JetPunk
Message Board
Dark Mode
International Commercial Law - Introduction to Key Themes
Can you answer these practice questions about international commercial law? Good luck!
Based on a course by Andreas von Goldbeck.
Rate:
Last updated: October 15, 2024
You have not attempted this quiz yet.
More quiz info >>
| First submitted | October 7, 2024 |
| Times taken | 4 |
| Average score | 100.0% | Report this quiz | Report |
3:00
The quiz is paused. You have remaining.
Scoring
You scored / = %
This beats or equals
% of test takers
also scored 100%
The average score is
Your high score is
Your fastest time is
Keep scrolling down for answers and more stats ...
1. 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?
This scenario highlights the traditional notions of territorial jurisdiction from older cases like Pennoyer v. Neff, which required physical presence or personal service within the state for a court to have jurisdiction. Xavier was never physically served in New York, and mere email notification likely does not satisfy the requirements for establishing jurisdiction under older principles of personal service.
Xavier was not physically present in New York, and personal service was not properly executed.
Xavier had no direct business with Anna, as the auction was handled by a third party.
Xavier targeted a global market and did not intentionally exclude New York from his potential customer base.
Xavier did not maintain continuous or systematic contacts with the United States as a whole.
2. 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?
This scenario reflects the minimum contacts principle from International Shoe v. Washington. While TechCo does not have a physical presence in California, its significant sales to California customers show that it purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in California. Purposeful availment establishes a sufficient connection for personal jurisdiction.
The fact that TechCo’s software is widely available for purchase online globally.
The fact that TechCo made substantial sales to customers in California, which were purposefully directed at the U.S. market.
The fact that TechCo has a physical presence in Germany, which makes it harder for the customer to sue abroad.
The fact that the damages were caused in California, regardless of TechCo’s location.
3. 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?
For a Texas court to have personal jurisdiction over MotoCorp, the company must have purposefully directed its activities toward Texas, not just foresee that its products might end up there. In this case, MotoCorp does more than simply sell to FastCycles; it instructs the distributor to target key markets, including Texas. This intentional action shows MotoCorp is actively trying to sell its products in Texas, meeting the requirement for personal jurisdiction under cases like Asahi.
Whether MotoCorp sold its parts directly to customers in Texas.
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.
Whether MotoCorp purposefully targeted Texas by running advertisements for its motorcycle parts in the state.
) Whether MotoCorp has a business agreement with FastCycles specifying which states the motorcycles will be sold in.
4. 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?
By selling its wine to WineWorld for distribution across the U.S., VinoEspaña has purposefully availed itself of the U.S. market, including Oregon. As part of the stream of commerce, VinoEspaña can be subject to jurisdiction in any state where its wine is sold, as it could reasonably foresee that its products would end up in places like Oregon.
Whether VinoEspaña directly sold its wine in Oregon.
Whether VinoEspaña purposefully availed itself of the U.S. market through its relationship with WineWorld.
Whether VinoEspaña advertised its wine to customers in Oregon
Whether VinoEspaña had any control over where WineWorld distributed its products in the U.S.
Your Next Quiz
Comments
No comments yet
New and Popular
Save Your Progress
International Commercial Law
Quiz series by baptistegorce
...