Legal Aspects of Business Decisions Week 2 Unit 2

Scenario
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. Can MBI bring suit in a Country C court? Is legally and ethically prudent for MBI to do so? There are numerous problems in dealing with the military establishment of foreign countries. Describe in detail what some of the problems that US businesses encounter when they manufacture and sell military equipment to foreign military agents?
Read each assessment listed below. Your response should address each assessment separately in order to move the conversation forward. Ensure the mastery of the concept as well as critical thinking. In your opinion, do not simply state that it is a good or bad idea; elaborate on your reasons and argument. Include enough detail to substantiate your thinking as well as your position.
Assessment One
Can MBI bring suit in a Country C court?
I believe that MBI should attempt to bring suit in a Country C court because Country D has demonstrated a breach of contract by failure to pay for goods that it has received. This should especially be done if Country D initiated the request and sale of the military tanks while in Country C’s jurisdiction. MBI should do some legal research to see if Country C has experienced this scenario before in the Country C’s Court System. With adequate research MBI can find out if Country C’s rationale regarding this issue differs from that of Country D’s.
Is legally and ethically prudent for MBI to do so?
With adequate legal research MBI would be wise or will be exercising good judgment by having a basis or precedence to move forward with a suit against Country D. This will allow MBI to have a deterrent for non paying customers both locally and abroad.
There are numerous problems in dealing with the military establishment of foreign countries. Describe in detail what some of the problems that US businesses encounter when they manufacture and sell military equipment to foreign military agents?
One problem that US businesses encounter when they manufacture and sell military equipment to foreign military agents is that “the export laws imposed by the U.S. government on defense-related goods and information have been a source of aggravation for U.S. companies and foreign customers for years” (Boland, 2011). Another problem is that “U.S. companies not only have to go through multiple agencies and defense and dual-use item lists on the domestic side, but they also have to manage business development on the foreign end. The timeline from wanting to sell to a country and actually making a sale is long, with plenty of bureaucracy in the middle” (Boland, 2011). Next, “another area of confusion is Foreign Military Financing (FMF), through which the United States provides funds to countries to buy certain defense goods from U.S. companies” (Boland, 2011). Also, “on the opposite end of that spectrum is concern about U.S. defense products falling into the hands of U.S. enemies or others who would use them to do harm in an uncontrolled way” (Boland, 2011).
Assessment Two
MBI is a Multi-national Corporation that manufactured military tanks at several of its branches around the world. (Country C is one of those branches has sold its tank to Country D who in fact is not a MBI Branch) After receiving deliveries of hundreds of tanks Country D refused to remit payment stating the tanks received were defective, even though they (Country D) has in fact deployed them as their frontline tanks.
MBI then sued (Country D) in country D’s courts. Country D courts dismissed the breach of contract charges by MBI declaring the army is immune from suit in the courts of country D. The questions and answers are listed below.
It is the opinion of this writer that the answer lies in the definition of “Breach of Contract.” Breach of contract by definition is a “Legal” cause of action where as a one or more parties have failed to honor the binding agreement either by interfering with the performance of the other parties involved or by non-performance. If the contractual agreement is broken by any of the partied involved, or a party has given information that they will not fulfill their obligations agreed upon this is breach of contract.
It is this writer’s opinion that the ruling made by the courts of (Country D) were accurate in their ruling that their particular army was immune to from suit in Country D by MBI. As clearly stated the tanks were sold to (Country D) by Country C. The contracts and transactions of the sales were direct actions of country C. So there for Country C should have been the entity to file suit in (Country D), not MBI. However (Country D) had a binding agreement with (Country C) to pay restitution for the hundreds of tanks they received and deployed. It is this writer’s opinion that MBI should be able to file suit in a (Country C) simply due Country C’s actions which lead to breach by Country D. However the variables in this scenario must be considered as this question is seemingly difficult to answer directly because MBI’s ability to sue (Country C) would be based on the contractual agreements in detail between “MBI” and (Country C.)
Yes by all means this writer feels it is legally and ethically prudent For MBI to bring (Country C) to court because (Country C) was solely responsible for the sale of hundreds of tanks to (Country d). Country D as it appears are refusing restitution claiming the tanks were defective. Meanwhile as the case suggest the tanks were not defective as (Country D) has deployed these tanks to their frontlines. If these tanks were defective (Country D) would not have been able to deploy these tanks. Yes it is legally as well ethically prudent for MBI to DO so because (Country C) is a branch of MBI. Is legally and ethically prudent for MBI to do so?
In this writers opinion the most common problem that U.S. business face when they manufacture and sell military equipment to foreign military is making the distinction between “Customary Law” and “International Customary Law” Customary Laws are laws that have been around and have been accepted as such for a very long time. Where “International Customary Laws” often change as in the “art of war” which changes and are often revised at the end of a practicality to reflect world changes at the end of major conflicts. Some U.S. Businesses that manufacture and sell military equipment to foreign agents may encounter various changes in International Customary law and are usually unprepared, and often have to re-align themselves with the present status in order to effectively do business with foreign military agents.
In order to increase effectiveness of U.S. business dealings with foreign military agents U.S. business must ensure that international customary practices of foreign military agents has indeed become international customary law. They can accomplish this by the establishment of two elements. The first being (behavioral), second being (psychological). In order to establish behavioral U.S. businesses must realize that recurring and consistent in no way mean lengthy and they must realize these laws are not followed by all states. The second element (psychological) must be acknowledged by U.S. business that an