Answer the question below as if you are counsel for Mr. Wide:
While on vacation in Brazil, Mr. Tall, a citizen of the United States, met Mr. Wide, a citizen of Brazil. Mr. Wide offered to sell Mr. Tall a vacation home in Brazil and to finance the purchase himself. Mr. Tall agreed and he signed a loan agreement promising to pay Mr. Wide in Brazilian currency. It turned out that the price was fair, but the property was unusable as a vacation property for all but a short period each year because of the unseasonable weather in Brazil. Mr. Tall wanted to back out of the agreement. Mr. Wide refused. Mr. Tall sued in a Brazilian court to have the contract set aside. At trial, Mr. Tall's attorney introduced proof to show that the loan agreement violated a U. S. currency regulation that forbade U. S. citizens from entering into foreign obligations without the advance authorization of the U. S. central bank, which Mr. Tall had not obtained. As both Brazil and the United States are members of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Mr. Tall's attorney argues that the effect of Article VIII(2)(b) of the IMF Articles of Agreement is to make the loan contract unenforceable. In this case, who is the plaintiff? Is Mr. Tall attorney's argument correct? What are the key factors of the case that you think must be considered in the decision?
The effect of Article VIII (2)(b) of the IMF Articles of Agreement is to make the loan contract unenforceable. However, in this case Mr. Tall has not complied with the US currency regulation that forbids US citizens from entering into foreign obligation without the advance authorization of the US central bank. In this case the plaintiff would be the US central Bank or the Federal Reserve and the defendant would be Mr. Tall. Mr. Tall has violated the US law.
Mr. Tall's attorney's argument is not correct. The reason is that Mr. Tall by not obtaining permission from ...
This explanation provides you a comprehensive argument relating to Purchase Agreement