While Nigeria, an African nation, was in the midst of a boom period due to oil exports, it entered into $ 1 billion of contracts with companies in various countries to purchase huge quantities of Portland cement from those companies. Nigeria was going to use the cement to build and improve the country’s infrastructure. Several of the contracts were with U. S. companies, including Texas Trading & Milling Corporation (Texas Trading). Nigeria substantially overbought cement, and the country’s docks and harbors became clogged with ships waiting to unload. Unable to accept delivery of the cement it had bought, Nigeria repudiated many of its contracts, including the one with Texas Trading. When Texas Trading sued Nigeria in U.S. District Court to recover damages for breach of contract, Nigeria asserted in defense that the doctrine of sovereign immunity protected it from liability. Has Nigeria acted ethically in asserting that the doctrine of sovereign immunity relieves it of its contract liability? Who wins? Texas Trading & Milling Corp. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 647 F. 2d 300, 1981 U. S. App. Lexis 14231 (United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit)