- Would a U.S. court override an employer’s contractual rights (as the Supreme Court of Japan did) because of a countervailing “socially accepted view”? What if the employment contract was between a drug lord and his “trigger man”? Do you think that the relative homogeneity of a national culture affects the breadth of issues on which there is a “socially accepted view”?
Meyers was under contract with Henderson to install overhead doors in a factory that Henderson was building. Meyers obtained the disassembled doors from the manufacturer. His contract with Henderson required Meyers to furnish all labor, materials, tools, and equipment to satisfactorily complete the installation of all overhead doors. Henderson felt the doors were not installed properly and paid less than one-half of the contract price after subtracting his costs for correcting the installation. Because of a business sale and other complications, Meyers did not sue Henderson for the difference in payment until five years later. Henderson raised the defense that because the contract was for the sale of goods, it was barred by the Code’s four-year statute of limitations.
- Susan Currie is a U.S. manufacturer of tear gas, which she sells to various governments for crowd control. To reduce transportation costs to the interested governments, Ms. Currie is considering building a new plant in Germany. The plant will employ 2,500 people. What foreign labor law considerations should she take into account?
The first consideration she should take into account is the conditions on the assignment of the employees that are anticipated to be employed.
The second consideration is the Employer’s obligation Acts towards the business entity set in the foreign land.
The third consideration is the law regulation of the foreign workers’ rights on the trading under strict labor standards.
- In the Judgment of February 23, 1988, what would the Austrian Supreme Court have done if a private cause of action had been available in Czechoslovakia? How do you think the court would handle complaints about a nuclear accident such as Chernobyl?
If a private cause of action had been available in Czechoslovakia then they would have taken the same decision as taken by the Austrian Supreme Court. Since at that time all conditions for Astrain jurisdiction exist but the jurisdiction ration loci was not available hence it was rejected by the court.
The court would handle complaints more seriously as about a nuclear accident such as Chernobyl which has accounted around 59 deaths out of which 30 were direct.
Since all necessary condition of Austrian jurisdiction could be in existence over the matter, then the private cause of action taken in Czechoslovakia would have been the same decision as taken by the Austrian Supreme Court. However a few steps were to be considered before confronting the matter, Austrian Supreme Court would then have to work hand in hand with legal institutions to come up with the ruling. I think courts would handle complaints on nuclear accidents based on the level of negligence caused by the company in question, if the company was so negligent on possible effect or accident to the people around then, it would have to fully accountable any lose incurred by people.
- How would an Austrian judgment for money damages against the Czechoslovak government be enforced? What type of injunctive relief would be possible?
An Austrian judgment for money damages against Czechoslovak government would have been enforced since the request was justified and stated that legal proceedings in the State concerned were unreasonable for the claimant
and obviously not possible, as there the problem under consideration was treated a public law problem and from acts no civil obligations could arise.
Injunctive relief would have been possible in the form of competent ration loci pursuant to section 28 of the Austrian law concerning the jurisdiction of courts in civil law matters as most recently amended.
The Austrian judgment would enforce money damages against Czechoslovak government through a foreign debt. The injunction is notable in a number of respects, not only for treating enormous Government debt evasion as a form of compliance. In this case, the type of injunction relief that would be possible is foreign interim injunctions.