1. In one case, a subsidiary of Colossal Corporation has negotiated a contract that calls for any disputes to be settled in the courts of Zintar, a relatively small African country that supplies raw materials for some of Colossal's European operations. The VP would like a discussion on the wisdom of this contract provision and thoughts on possible alternative approaches if the contract were to be renegotiated.
2. In a second case, a Colossal subsidiary in Bartan, an Asian country, wants the company to enter into a sales contract with a subsidiary there, using the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) as the controlling law. The VP needs to know the ramifications of this option and decide whether it is a good idea.
3. Colossal management also needs to know whether arbitration is a good idea for a dispute resolution provision for both domestic and international contracts and why.
4. The parent company, Colossal Corporation, has been sued in the country of Notso in South America. The lawsuit claims millions of dollars in damages due to supposed pollution at a mine that Colossal owned there. Since Colossal has already decided to exit that country and sold the mine there, the company's regional VP believes there is no risk if the company is taken to court in Notso. He says that even if Colossal loses there and a court judgment is rendered against it, there is no danger because the company will have left the country. The VP needs to know if he is right.
5. Finally, one of Colossal's suppliers in the country of Edfin no longer wants to supply needed raw materials for Colossal's factories in the United States, unless Colossal agrees to pay them by opening a letter of credit. Up to now, the company has paid them after delivery to the United States, which has allowed Colossal to inspect the quality of the shipments before sending payment. What are the ramifications of granting Edfin's request?