International Law Dispute Settlement (DB-2) Research Paper

International Law Dispute Settlement (DB-2) - Research Paper Example hill (2011), immunity against suit means that the party involved is not liable and it is impossible to use it, and it should not even be bothered to participate in the lawsuit. In this case, MBI cannot sue Country D for failing to pay for the military equipment supplied to them. However, there are cases where the supplier cannot be held liable for any defective military equipment, and thus, may demand full payment for the equipment supplied. Rakowsky (2005) states that Feres-Stencel doctrine can be used in cases where the suppliers of military equipment supply products with design defects, which have been approved by the government. He argues that permitting liability against contractors (in this case, the multinational corporation, MBI) in such a situation can subvert the Feres-Stencel doctrine. This is because the military suppliers can simply pass the associated expenditures or costs through to the government. Making contractors responsible for the designs accepted by the government would put the judiciary in a state in which they will be forced to make military decisions (Rakowsky, 2005). Thus, the Ninth Circuit has created its own way of determining contractor immunity. The supplier can be immune if he is capable of proving that the country in question approved the â€Å"precise specifications for the allegedly defective military equipment† (Rakowsky, 2005). Thus, if MBI is able to prove that Country D approved of the military equipment, the supplier is capable of suing Country D in Country C. It is legal and ethical for MBI to make such a move because the law provides the immunity of suppliers who deal with military equipment. A number of ethical issues arise such as why Country D refused to pay for the suppliers offered to them by MBI’s subsidiary. Other ethical issues include if the move made by MBI would hold any ground. It is important to note that performing business globally presents its unique challenges such as ethical challenges. This is common

Private Express Trust Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Private Express Trust - Essay Example Megaw LJ and Sachs applied a much wider approach to the phrase â€Å"relative†. However, this elucidation is challenging as it is very arduous for the court to test the claim. Megaw LJJ and Sachs tried to resolve this issue by emphasizing the onus on the person claiming to be an ancestor to demonstrate it. Sachs LJ observed that the class of those to whom a trustee can distribute the benefit of beneficiary’s right should be â€Å"conceptually certain.† As per Megaw LJ, a discretionary trust can be said to be legal if there is a â€Å"vast number â€Å"of beneficiaries who are falling well within the class to whom a trustee can divide the benefit of trustee’s right. The additional conditions inflicted by Megaw LJJ and Sachs did not help in adhering the objective of the â€Å" any given person† test thereby paving the court to direct whether the trustee distributes the benefit of the right to an individual outside the permitted class. Hence, Re Bade n No is different from McPhail test as it was more narrow and strict. Though Stamp opinion was the minority in nature, which was in tandem with findings in McPhail. Sachs LJ test resolved many issues, by footing upon conceptual certainty and has eluded the challenging area of evidential certainty by retreating the accountability. In Re Baden, Sachs LJ footed his test on conceptual certainty, while Megaw LJ avoided the use of evidential certainty with his test where Stamp LJ employed â€Å"complete list† found to be beneficial.