In this case, we have the intersection of interpretation of foreign law, the worldwide rights of a competitor to sell a copy of a french press product, and the parol evidence rule - whether courts will allow evidence outside of the contract itself to help determine the intent of the parties. Please consider and answer these questions, citing from the Bodum v. La Cafetiere case (and please do not forget to comment on two peers' posts):

(1) Would you uphold the decision to allow the Household company to sell its copy of the original French Press anywhere except France? Why or why not?

(2) What do you think is the significance of the two concurring opinions? Why did the judges bother to concur?