Question answer Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Question answer - Essay Example Notably, finance minister of State X was present at the signing of the agreement between the two parties and after signing the document, the finance minister added the words â€Å"approved and ratified† and the minister also placed his own signature. Later on, a dispute aroused where OIC initiated a settlement proceeding in accordance with the procedures set out in the joint venture contract specifying both IPF and State X. However, State X argued that settlement tribunal has no jurisdiction over it. The major case issue is that whether State X can be excused from participating in the suit or not. With regard to the case, it can be stated that State X cannot be excused from participating in the suit. As the common law of contract in Australia affirms that any third party benefitting from the contractual agreement is liable to sue the other major party under the contractual agreement and vice versa. Nonetheless, privity of contract states that only the major parties entering in to the contractual agreement has the right to sue each other if any dispute arises. Simultaneously, the doctrine of privity of contract denies any obligations or liabilities to third party1. However, the doctrine of privity states that the major party has the right to sue the third party benefiting from the contract. ... over the performance of IPF, it cannot be denied that any action performed by IPC is governed by and taken with the active participation of State X2. Thus, the action of IPC cannot be distinguished from State X. In addition, State X also affirmed the contract by providing its approval and rectification as well as the finance minister of State X placed his signature to the contractual agreement which provided an evidence of State X’s involvement to the contractual agreement entered between OIC and IPF. At the same time, it can be argued that finance minister of State X was endorsing the contract but he was not making government as a party to the contract entered. Despite this aspect, it can be stated that State X should not be excused from participating in the suit. Additionally, the arbitration tribunal has sole power to involve State X in the suit. QUESTION 2: Considering the case of the Republic of Argentina et al v. Weltover Inc. et al., The United States used the Foreign S overeign Immunities Act of 1996 to bring suit against Argentina for a default on bond repayment. According to Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1996, statutory method can be ascertained from the United States courts to acquire jurisdiction over non-US sovereign. It offers that any person in the United States can seek for jurisdiction for disputes resulting from business transactions to non-US sovereign. It immunises non-U.S. states from jurisdiction of US court unless any exceptional scenario applies. Accordingly, Supreme Court of the USA has characterised â€Å"commercial activity† as the most important exception. This exception provides the verdict regarding which party can apply for lawsuit against the non-US sovereign in the US court. As part of a plan to stabilise petitioner, the Republic of