Zedan received a telephone call from a Saudi Arabian organization offering him an engineering position at a construction project in Saudi Arabia. The Ministry of Communications, an agency of the government, guaranteed payment to Zedan for any work he performed there, whether for the government or for a nonsovereign third party. After three years, Zedan left the country without being fully paid. After he returned to the United States, he filed an action in federal court seeking to enforce the ministry$$s guarantee. The ministry argued that it was protected under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

Was Zedan$$s recruitment in the United States a commercial activity as required by the act?

Did this action have a direct effect in the United States as required by the act? Explain. See Zedan v$.$ Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, $849$ F$\mathrm{.}2$d $1511($D$.$C$.$ Cir. $1988).$

From time to time, courts are called on to determine the enforceability of an arbitration clause contained in a contract. DiMercurio was injured in $1994$ when the commercial fishing vessel in which he was working sank. The vessel was owned by R&M$,$ which was found by a court to be liable to DiMercurio for his injuries and ordered to pay $$350,000$ in compensation. However, because R&M had no other assets, it assigned to DiMercurio all the rights it had against Sphere Drake, the London$-$based insurer of the fishing vessel. When DiMercurio looked to Sphere Drake for payment, it denied the claim and invoked the arbitration clause in its insurance policy with R&M$,$ which required the arbitration to take place in England. Should DiMercurio be required to pursue his claim through arbitration in England? Explain. See DiMercurio v$.$ Sphere Drake Insurance, $202$ F$\mathrm{.}3$d $71(1$st Cir. $2000).$