The survivors of the Holocaust and the heirs of the Holocaust victims filed a case in the federal district court in the U.S. against various Hungarian entities alleging that they have expropriated property from the Hungarian Jews. The plaintiffs did not try to seek remedies from the Hungarian court nor they provided a legally compelling reason for not doing so. The defendants then asked the court to dismiss the court. To find: in the case that the request of the defendant is supported by the principle of comity.

Question

The Concentrated Phosphate Export Association consists of the five largest phosphate producers. The Agency for International Development (AID) undertook to sell fertilizer to Korea and solicited bids. The association set prices and submitted a single bid on 300,000 tons. A paid the contract price, determined the amounts to be purchased, coordinated the procedure for buying, and undertook to resell to Korea. The Justice Department sued the association and its members, claiming that their actions violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act. What defense might the defendants have? What is the result?

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 11, Problem 7BCP

Summary Introduction

Case summary: The survivors of the Holocaust and the heirs of the Holocaust victims filed a case in the federal district court in the U.S. against various Hungarian entities alleging that they have expropriated property from the Hungarian Jews. The plaintiffs did not try to seek remedies from the Hungarian court nor they provided a legally compelling reason for not doing so. The defendants then asked the court to dismiss the court.

To find: in the case that the request of the defendant is supported by the principle of comity.

Expert Solution & Answer

Trending nowThis is a popular solution!

See solution

Check out sample textbook solution

Students have asked these similar questions

The Concentrated Phosphate Export Association consists of the five largest phosphate producers. The Agency for International Development (AID) undertook to sell fertilizer to Korea and solicited bids. The association set prices and submitted a single bid on 300,000 tons. A paid the contract price, determined the amounts to be purchased, coordinated the procedure for buying, and undertook to resell to Korea. The Justice Department sued the association and its members, claiming that their actions violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act. What defense might the defendants have? What is the result?

Advances in biological technology have enabled two research companies, Bio Labs, Inc. and Scientific Associates, to develop an insect-resistant corn seed. Neither company is financially strong enough to develop the distribution channels necessary to bring the product to world markets. World Agra Distributors, Inc. has negotiated contracts with both companies for the exclusive right to market their seed. Bio Labs signed an agreement to receive an annual royalty of $1,000,000. In contrast, Scientific Associates chose an agreement that provides for a royalty of $0.50 per pound of seed sold. Both agreements have a 10-year term. During Year 1, World Agra sold approximately 1,600,000 pounds of the Bio Labs, Inc. seed and 2,400,000 pounds of the Scientific Associates seed. Both types of seed were sold for $1.25 per pound. By the end of Year 1, it was apparent that the seed developed by Scientific Associates was superior. Although insect infestation was virtually nonexistent for both types of…

The U.S. Polo Association (USPA) is a not-for-profit corporation that is thegoverning body of the sport of polo in the United States. It has been in existence since 1890 and derives the majority of its revenue from royalties obtained from licensing its trademarks. It owns more than 900 trademarks worldwide, including marks bearing the words “U.S. Polo Assn.” with the depiction of two polo players for licensees on products sold in the apparel category. In 2009 it produced 10,000 units of a men’s fragrance using packaging featuring its logo as used on apparel. Since 1978 PRL (Polo Ralph Lauren) and its licensee of PRL trademarks, L’Oreal, have used the mark known as the “Polo Player” logo on men’s fragrances with its logo containing one player. The fragrance has been sold for 32 years and it was voted into the industry’s Hall of Fame. PRL sued USPA. What must PRL establish to prevail in an action for trademark infringement? How would you decide this case?