Saint Vincent and the Grenadines filed a petition sopping the Guinea government from holding the saiga

The paper evaluates five different case briefs in different jurisdictions. For instance, case 2-5 for instance, is a case that involves a liner ship with members of the crew from Ukraine and the government of Guinea, which is a litigant in this scenario. The defendant is accused of selling oil that had not been taxed. Subsequently, case 3-4 is a legal dispute between a former consulate employee known as Abbot against two jurisdictions; South Africa and Spain. The constitutional court of 1992 was also involved. The plaintiff alleges how he got dismissed without a package. Moreover, case 6-7 involves the Libyan Arab Foreign Bank, which is the plaintiff vs. the Bankers Trust Firm, which is the defendant. The plaintiff commenced legal proceedings because hundreds of millions of dollars had been frozen contrary to the English law. Furthermore, case 7-2 is where EU, US and Canada are embroiled in a legal tussle with Japan over high taxes on imported spirits. Consequently, case 9-3 involves a chemical company known as Coramandal Indag that was embroiled in a legal suite with Monsanto, the plaintiff over intellectual property rights charges.

Introduction

The case brief entails the use of a certain approach that ensures relevant elements are emphasized. Moreover, the development of a case brief starts with presenting a summary of facts associated with the case. In this regards, facts are useful when it comes to comprehending the reasoning behind the verdict. The procedure involves the proceeding in the lower courts (Law School, n.d). The issue(s) are questions facing the courts while holding and reasoning is how the court responds to the questions. In addition, the dissenting opinion can be included in the brief because some case briefs are important than majority opinion. The essay sets out to present a briefing of five cases.

Case 2-5: M/V Saiga

Facts: Saint Vincent and the Grenadines filed a petition stopping the government of Guinea from holding their oil tanker referred to as Saiga. The Saiga was found in Guinea selling oil, which was not taxed. The government seized the ship with all crew from Ukraine. The crew was sentenced for six months imprisonment with hefty penalties. Although the Saiga had come from Tabona Shipping firm; however, it was registered in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.

Procedure: The lower court also ruled that the ship was not related to Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Issue: Whether the government of Guinea had power to use custom laws based on the components of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ)?

Holding: No

Reasoning: According to Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the ship was within Sierra Leone territories and had their flag. For that reason, Guinea could have released the ship after the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) order. Nonetheless, Guinea declined to release the ship alleging that there was no relationship between the flag and the ship because members of the crew were foreigners. On the other hand, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines stated that the flag and ship were their property (August, 2006). Fundamentally, the Tribunal held that the government of Guinea had no power to use its custom laws. Moreover, a number of conditions were not met (Steigelman, 2014). For example, the Saiga did not violate any law of the Guinea government. The courts alleged that the flag was not an important aspect when determining the ship ownership.

Concurring/dissenting opinions: The court pronounced a verdict that Saint Vincent and the Grenadines were related to the vessel based on ownership; as such, they could order its release.

Case 3-4 Abbot v. Republic of South Africa, Spain, Constitutional Court, 1992

Fact: Abott the plaintiff was a foreign citizen who had been previously dismissed from her job at the South African Embassy in Spain. The plaintiff won when she was granted compensation of her salary. Abott pursued to execute the decision against the properties of South African Embassy. South African appealed while the court determined that its accounts were completely not subject to execution. This would then culminate into the dismissal of Abbott’s request, however she appealed.

Procedure: The court allowed the plaintiff to appeal

Issue: Can the court impose judgment against a foreign state’s property“

Holding: Yes, especially if the property is for commercial purpose and not in the local bank account

Reasoning: Based on the Vienna resolution on diplomatic ties, a foreign state property enjoys the immunity. Nonetheless, immunity is provided to any foreign property used for government activities and not properties used for commercial activities (Valentine, Feinberg & Fabiilli, 2015). At that point, the court cannot request an embassy to disclose the financial portfolio or the value of its property used for commercial activities. This can interfere with the embassy’s governmental roles. With respect to international law, the bank accounts of the embassy are not subject to judgment.

Case 6-7: Libyan Arab Foreign Bank V. Bankers Trust Company

Fact: As of 8th January, 1986, the Libyan Arab Foreign bank, which is the plaintiff, had about USD 135.1 million in the call deposit account while USD 161.4 million in demand account in the Bankers Trust Company in New York. Based on the New York law, all Libyan deposits were frozen; however, this is not specified in the English law. As a result, the Libyan bank sued the Bankers Trust in London to recover its deposits. On its part, the defendant alleged that they were not responsible since the New York law governed deposits and yet the very law was against transfer of funds from the London account. In addition, the defendant indicated that the contract between the parties gave the New York offer to monitor the plaintiff’s bank accounts in London and New York.

Procedure: The court awarded the Libyan bank the first claim of USD 131 and USD 161 million. Nevertheless, the plaintiff did not win the third and fourth claims.

Issues: Whether the New York law applies the agreement provides that the New York based office monitors the accounts in London and New York?

Holding: Yes, because there was one agreement and the responsibilities of the parties with regards to the London account under the English law.

Reasoning: As the general principle, the agreement between the bank and customer is governed by the law of the jurisdiction in which the account is based. According to this case, issues challenging the general principle were not evident. For that reason, Justice Stoughton opinion was based on the fact that the deposists were under New York law as well as English law. Nonetheless, there might be two agreements with every contract under New York and English law in terms of where they were formed because the move to transfer funds to London branch and Banker’s Trust company was not success. Therefore, there transfer failed the Libyan bank has a right to recover its funds.

CASE 7-2: Japan Taxed on alcoholic beverages

Fact: European Union (EU), US and Canada complained about Japan’s imposition of higher tax on imported vodka compared to Shochu, a locally produced alcohol. The EU, US and Canada argued that Japan’s tax imposition was a violation of Article III of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) that stipulate taxing imported products like locally manufactured goods (Davis, 2015). The US alleged that Article III must be interpreted in terms of ”aim-and-effect. However, Japan stated that Shochu and vodka were not products and its taxes provision on alcoholic beverages were not against Article III since its tax ratio was ”roughly neutral (August 2006).

Procedure: Japan was ordered to harmonize taxes imposed on alcoholic beverage to adhere to Article III of GATT.

Issue: 1. Should the ”aim-and- effect test be used in this case?

2. Can the ”roughly neutral tax ration be used to adequately meet the provision of Article III?

3. Is Vodka and shochu like products?

Holding: 1. No: 2. No; 3. Yes

Reasoning: With regards to issue 1, the aim-and-effect test is based on the provisions of Article III. For that reason, it is inadequate to apply aim-and effect test since it is challenging to determine the real purpose of local laws. When it comes to the second issue, a significant leeway is presented. Article III of the GATTstipulates that taxes imposed on imported goods should not be higher compared to locally manufactured goods (Zhou, 2012). The taxes imposed on vodka are significant in relation to shochu by approximately 50%. Additionally, Japan’s neutral claim is not only inconsistent but not in Japan’s law. Based on issue 3, Shochu and vodka should be regarded as products because they are consumed by same customers, however their filtration have matching characteristic.

Case 9-3 Monsanto Co. v. Coramandal Indag Products

Fact: Monsanto Company, the plaintiff filed a case claiming that Coramandal Indag products infringed two of its patents- 125381 and 104120. While the two patents were used to destroy weeds, they were deposited into a single patent; Number 125381 (August, 2006). The MC patented phototoxic chemical and the Grass Selective Herbicide containing Butachlor or CP-53619.

Procedure: The case was decreed by a trial court; however, the appellate court dismissed it.

Issues: Did the defendant infringe the patent? Whether the plaintiff has a patent?

Holding: No; No

Reasoning: The court ruled against the defendant because the patent in question was not manufactured by Monsanto Company and fails to validate infringement claims. Specifically, Butachlor was discovered between 1966-67; a herbicide without hazardous effects on rice. Inventions can also be safeguarded when they contain a resourceful procedure that is vital in industrial usage. However, this is only possible if the product should have the ability to employ an industry through patent protection.

Concurring/Dissenting Opinions: The court determined that because Butachlor was not created by the Monsanto Company, the charges against it were unfounded, hence no infringement happened. In addition, Butachlor was invented by the International Rice Research Institute and therefore, the suit was revoked.

Conclusion

While the paper set out to evaluate five different briefs, the jury pronounced verdicts based on the uniqueness of each case. For Monsanto Co. vs. Coramandal Indag Products, for instance, the court ruled not just against the petitioner but also dismissed the argument that the patent in question was not a product of Monsanto. However, when it comes to the hefty tax charges case, petitioned by the US, EU and Canada, two judges rules against the plaintiff while one had a dissenting voice.

References

August M. (2006). International Business Law: Text, cases, and readings (6th ed.). Boston: MA: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Davis, A. (2015). The Shochu Conundrum: Economics and GATT Article III. Undergraduate Economic Review, 12(1), 15.

Law school. (n.d). How to brief a case. Retrieved on January 29, 2018 from http://www.4lawschoo.com/howto.htm

Steigelman, T. E. (2014). Of Admirals and Bondholders. Journal of Maritime Law & Commmerce, 45, 1

Valentine, V. A., Feinberg, S. B., & Fabiilli, S. R. (2015). The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s Crippling Effect on United States Businesses. Mich. St. International law Review, 24, 625.

Zhou, W. (2012). The role of regulatory purpose under articles III: 2 and 4 - toward consistency between negotiating history and WTO jurisprudence. World Trade Review, 11 (1), 81-118.