1. A Saudi Arabian government-run hospital hired American Scott Nelson to be an engineer. The parties signed the employment agreement in the United States. On the job, Nelson reported that the hospital had significant safety defects. For this, he was arrested, jailed, and tortured for 39 days. Upon his release to the U.S., Nelson sued the Saudi government for personal injury in the U.S. courts. Can Nelson sue Saudi Arabia in the U.S. courts as a result of this situation? 2. Suppose Frank and Bonnie are living together in an apartment. Frank is the suspect in an investigation of illegal drug sales to local high school students. If Frank or Bonnie consents to a police search of the premises, then the police are not required to first obtain a warrant. What if Frank and Bonnie disagree, with Bonnie wanting to grant permission while Frank forbids the police to enter? Should the police be required to obtain a search warrant before searching? What if Frank denies permission to enter but the police go back later, when Frank is not home, and Bonnie consents to the search? Can the drug paraphernalia and bags of cocaine found in plain site in the apartment be admitted into evidence against Frank? 3. Chateau, a Canadian winery, contracted over the phone to buy 1.2 million wine corks from Sabate USA, the U.S. subsidiary of Sabate France. The parent company shipped the corks from France to Canada, along with a pre-printed invoice. The invoice contained a forum selection clause providing that any dispute would be heard in a French court. When Chateau realized that the corks altered the taste of its wine, it sued Sabate in California for breach of contract. Chateau argued that the forum selection clause was not part of the original deal. Furthermore, it had an enforceable oral agreement with Sabate USA, which was governed by the CISG because both Canada and the United States were signatories. Did the CISG govern the dealings between Chateau and Sabate USA? If so, did the contract between Chateau and Sabate USA have to be in writing? Was the forum selection clause enforceable against Chateau? Please answer each of these questions briefly with explanation. 4. Please analyze the following situation and discuss briefly how a court would determine causation in a negligence suit against Travis, our defendant in this negligence case: On Monday, Travis took his four-wheeler to Reppart's Equipment & Service for repair because the steering was not working properly. On Friday, he called Reppart's to see if his four-wheeler was ready because he wanted it for a weekend trip. Reppart's said they had done the major repairs but that the steering system still needed some work and that they needed another few days to finish the repairs. Travis told them he would pick the four-wheeler up that day, use it for the weekend and then bring it back to have them finish their work. While riding with friends on the weekend, Travis ran into someone because the steering stuck and he couldn't swerve to avoid them. (Remember, as discussed in Chapter 8 of the textbook, there are two elements to causation in negligence cases, factual causation and proximate causation.) 5. The Instituto de Auxilios y Viviendas is an agency of the government of the Dominican Republic. Dr. Marion Fernandez, the general administrator of the Instituto and Secretary of the Republic, sought a loan for the Instituto. She requested that Charles Meadows, an American citizen, secure the Instituto a bank loan of $12 million. The contract between Meadows and the Instituto provided that, if Meadows obtained a loan on favorable terms, he would receive a fee of $240,000. Meadows secured a loan on satisfactory terms, which the Instituto accepted. He then sought his fee, but the Instituto and the Dominican government refused to pay. He sued the government in United States District Court. The Dominican government claimed sovereign immunity. Comment on whether or not (with explanation and rationale) Meadows would be able to sue the Dominican government in the U.S. courts