In the Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals, Inc case discussed in the text, plaintiffs sued the defendant Canadian corporation in a United States court, regarding an order under CERCLA pertaining to its contamination of water in Canada that reached the U.S. Was the Canadian corporation subject to the courts of the United States?
a. The court ruled that the defendant lacked the minimum contacts necessary to require it to submit to the jurisdiction of a U.S. court.
b. The court ruled that subject matter jurisdiction did not exist.
c. The court ruled that the defendant was subject to jurisdiction in the U.S. court.
d. The court ruled that the defendant lacked the minimum contacts necessary to require it to submit to the jurisdiction of a U.S. court and that subject matter jurisdiction did not exist.
c
You might also like to view...
The distinction between current and long-term liabilities affects the evaluation of a company's solvency
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
Davis Construction Inc Davis Construction began operation on January 1, 2012, with an initial investment of $100,000 from each of its three stockholders. During the year ending 2012 Davis Construction had net income of $125,000 and paid dividends of $50,000. Refer to the information provided for Davis Construction, Inc and calculate its retained earnings balance at December 31, 2012
A) $175,000 B) $ 75,000 C) $150,000 D) $275,000
Henry has a newspaper stand where he sells papers for $0.50 each. The papers cost him $0.30 each, giving him a 20-cent profit on each one he sells
From past experience, Henry knows that 20% of the time he sells 100 papers 20% of the time he sells 150 papers 30% of the time he sells 200 papers 30% of the time he sells 250 papers Assuming that Henry believes the cost of a lost sale is 10 cents and any unsold papers cost him $0.30, simulate Henry's profit outlook over 5 days if he orders 175 papers for each of the 5 days. Use the following random numbers: 52, 06, 50, 88, 53.
Caleb is driving a car in which Duffy is a passenger when an accident occurs. Caleb and Duffy are emotionally rattled, but neither is physically hurt. Caleb is not liable to Dufy on a negligence theory because A) both parties were emotionally rattled
B) Caleb did not apparently intend to cause an accident. C) Duffy must have been comparatively negligent. D) Duffy was not injured.