Law

1. Under Incoterms 2000, CIF (Cost, Freight and Insurance) means that seller delivers when the goods pass the ship rail in the port of shipment. In particular, in CIF seller should provide a marine insurance against buyers risk of loss or of damage to the goods in the period of carriage. The risk of loss passes from seller to buyer after the goods passed the bulwark of the ship in the port of delivery. From the presented case it is understood that the ship passed the ship rail in the port of embarking and sank after this. Therefore, the risk of loss should be imposed on buyer Jimmy. In this light the statement of Ahmed seems to be reasonable. However, Ahmed broke contractual obligation to provide marine insurance. Thus, it is very likely that Ahmed will win in terms of risk of loss, but will fail in terms of insurance reimbursement. It means that Jimmy will pay Ahmed the cost of goods less the amount of fine for failure to provide insurance. In case against collecting bank, I can assume that the bank will win as according to Incoterms 2000 it took reasonable measures paid amount owed under the contract less certificate of insurance.

2. Article 30 of EC Treaty prohibits quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect. In Dassonville case, the Court stated that prohibitions or restrictions on import, exports, or goods in transit justified on the grounds of public morality, public policy, or public security (Procureur du Roi v Benot and Gustave Dassonville. ECJ 1974). At the same time, Article 36 of EC Treaty states that such provisions shall not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on import, exports, or goods in transit justified on the grounds of public morality, public policy, or public security the protection of life of humans, animals, or plants. In this case Britain considerably limits import of fresh beef. In particular, it prohibits certain mode of transportation  under or over saltwater body.  It is not understandable, in this case, how the mean of transportation affects the beef biologico  chemical structure. In addition, one should bear in mind that beef is usually packed in certain ways, so it is not clear how transportation over and under saltwater body will affect beefs quality. Therefore, it can not be said that Britain adopts public security or public health policy as it is not enough justification of a link between transportation and possible harm.

3. EU law prohibits restriction of free movement of goods except as in case of restrictions on import, exports, or goods in transit justified on the grounds of public morality, public policy, or public security the protection of life of humans, animals, or plants. The question is whether seeking to include the letter n constitutes an issue of public morality or public policy. Obviously the protection of cultural uniqueness is policy of every state. However, the public policy of every state should be ensuring of freedom. Spains law restricts not only freedom of goods movement, but also a freedom of people to choose what kind of keyboard they want. In my opinion, the issue of whether to include letter n to the keyboard should be resolved within the market, but not by restriction of goods movement.

4. In general international law respects the power of countrys authorities to set their own policies, including tariff regulation. However, the international agreements, such as GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) set the rules for regulating goods and services. In particular, GATT regulates tariff policies by setting particular provisions for particular products. At the same time, international community stands for economic development. That is why art.18 of GATT foresees that contracting parties may enjoy facilities to enable them  to maintain sufficient flexibility in their tariff structure to be able to grant the tariff protection required for the establishment of a particular industry. Therefore, provided that this measure will enhance countries economic development Italy can resort to this measure.

5. Saeed did not violate Foreign Corrupt Practices Act as this U.S. law is valid only on the territory of the United States of America, but not on the territory of Argentina. To make measure as legal as possible I would advice Saeed to act through local lawyer, who knows local laws and knows how much time according to Argentina law it takes to obtain a license.