International Business Law Worksheet

1611 Words7 Pages
BUS 430 Complete Class( International Business Law) Click Link Below To Buy: http://hwcampus.com/shop/bus-430/bus-430-complete-class-international-business-law/ Or Visit www.hwcampus.com BUS 430 Complete Class( International Business Law) BUS 430 Week 1 Individual Assignment Comparative Law Worksheet Use the worksheet on the student Web site to compare the three major types of law, Civil, Common, and Islamic. Your responses must provide 1 or more origins for the type of law, 5 or more regions in which that type of law is practiced, and a 30-50 word summary of the characteristics of that type of law. Week 1 DQ1 What are some differences when doing business internationally opposed to domestically? How do international business…show more content…
Week 3 DQ1 What are the basic principles of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)? What are the basic principles behind the World Trade Organization (WTO)? In what ways are GATT and the WTO similar or different? How do the WTO and GATT settle disputes? Provide examples. Week 3 DQ2 Ressorp, Inc. in Japan agreed to sell 700 television sets to Reardon, a wholesaler, in the United States for US$ 144,417.00. Ressorp, Inc. and Reardon expressly agreed that Reardon would not pay for the television sets until Reardon both received and sold the merchandise in the United States. They also agreed that the merchandise would be shipped CPT Portstown in the United States and that Incoterms 2010 would govern. Ressorp, Inc. arranged to ship the goods with Oceanic Carriers, whose place of business is located in Beachtown, Japan. Ressorp, Inc. loaded the goods from its warehouse into a trailer and delivered the trailer to Oceanic’s freight depot in Beachtown. Several days later, the trailer was discovered to be missing and then it was found abandoned and empty. Reardon, the buyer, then sued Oceanic Carriers. The carrier challenged Reardon’s standing (right) to sue claiming that the original contract said Reardon had no liability to pay for the merchandise until after it was received and sold by Reardon. Therefore, Oceanic Carriers argued, it was the seller, Ressorp, Inc. who should have brought the suit, not Reardon. Is Oceanic correct? Explain why or why

More about International Business Law Worksheet

Open Document