Explore BrainMass

Explore BrainMass

    Case Study: Shell V. R.W. Sturge

    This content was COPIED from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

    Can you give me some help on these two questions?

    Part A

    I need help writing this case brief. Original only please. Read the Shell v. R.W. Sturge Ltd. case and do the following:

    1. Prepare a case brief. Refer to the "How to Brief a Case" Web page when preparing your case brief. If you can help me with about 600-700 words original only please I can finish it.

    Part B

    For several decades, MBI, a multi-national corporation, has manufactured military tanks at several of its branches around the world. One of those branches in Country C sells its tanks both to the army of Country C and the army of Country D. MBI does not have a branch in Country D. After delivering several hundred tanks to Country D, that country has refused to pay for them, complaining that they were defective. (It has nonetheless deployed them as its frontline battle tanks.) MBI sued Country D in the courts of Country D. The courts of Country D dismissed a breach of contract action brought by the MBI several months ago. The rationale for the Court's decision is that that the army is immune from suit in its courts.

    I need about 600 words original only in this section and I can finish it. Thanks

    1. Can MBI bring suit in a Country C court?
    2. Is legally and ethically prudent for MBI to do so?
    3. There are numerous problems in dealing with the military establishment of foreign countries.
    4. Describe in detail what some of the problems that US businesses encounter when they manufacture and sell military equipment to foreign military agents?

    © BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 2, 2020, 5:01 am ad1c9bdddf

    Solution Preview

    Step 1

    1. Title and Citation
    Shell V. R.W. Sturge Ltd.
    No. C-1-93-802.
    2. Facts of the Case
    West Shell and Hauck are the representatives for the case related to investors who invested the money in Lloyds. The investor wanted to set aside the contract for investment in Lloyds. Their contention was that the Ohio State Securities law had been violated. The point Shell and Hauck made was that Lloyds had violated the Ohio securities law by selling unregistered and non-exempt securities. They asked the court to set aside the contract and be returned to the original positions. They offered to return any benefits by way of profits that they had earned from the investments. Shell and Hauck clearly showed that the defenders of the case had clearly violated the law that governed public investment. Shell and Hauck claimed that offering securities that were not recognized can harm them. The argument of Shell and Hauck was that even though they had earned profits during the past two years, they apprehend incurring heavy losses in the couple of years. Further, they claimed that they did not know at the time of investment if the securities were recognized or not. Shell and Hauck under Section 12 (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures decided to file a suit. The civil court accepted the suit for hearing. However, both the agreements had a forum selection clause and a choice of law clause. These agreements clearly stated that English courts have exclusive jurisdiction and the agreement will take place according to the English law.
    Now according to Shell and Hauck the selection of the forum for the case makes them away from their right. Since their right was in accordance with the Ohio law. Shell and Hauck claimed that their rights under the Ohio law were civil rights.
    R.W. Sturge, LTD filed a motion to dismiss the case because it was an improper venue. The court granted the motion of R.W. Sturge, LTD. ...

    Solution Summary

    This solution explains Shell V.R.W. Sturge and international forum. The sources used are also included in the solution.