Please answer the 2 questions about the below 2 cases.

Textbook: Dynamic Business Law (4th edition) Kubasek, Browne, Dhooge, Herron, Barkacs, Williamson

Please answer the below 2 questions (Q#1 page 148 & Q#5 page 149)

1. Spain divided unroasted no decaffeinated coffee into five separate classifications. A 7 percent tariff was imposed on three of these classifications. The other two classifications were duty free. Brazil, the principal supplier of the coffee subject to the tariff, alleged that the Spanish classification regime failed to extend most-favored-nation treatment to like products originating from Brazil, thus violating GATT. Spain defended the classifications on the basis that the products were not like products due to differences resulting from geographic factors, cultivation methods, processing, and genetics. The GATT panel rejected these arguments. The panel noted that most coffees are blends, coffee is universally regarded as a well-defined and single product intended for drinking, and no other state maintained a similar classification scheme. The panel thus concluded that the classification system discriminated against like products in violation of GATT’s most-favored- nation requirement. Do you agree with this decision? Is coffee a single universal product regardless of where it is grown, how it is processed, or what the cost is to consumers? [Spain—Tariff Treatment of Unroasted Coffee, 1981 GATTPD LEXIS 5 (1981).]

5 Seung was Passenger on the M/S Paul Gauguin cruise ship owned by Regent Seven Seas Cruises. The cruise ship operated exclusively in French Polynesia. Seung’s ticket contained a forum selection clause that designated Paris, France, as the sole location for any lawsuit that might be filed arising from passenger injuries on cruises that did not include a U.S. port Seung was injured on her cruise and filed a law- suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Regent Seven Seas Cruises moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis of the forum selection clause. Seung claimed that the clause was unfair as she was financially and medically unable to bring a lawsuit in Paris and that Paris was a “remote alien forum” designated for the sole purpose of discouraging passengers from bringing legitimate claims. The district court dismissed Seung’s lawsuit, and she appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Is the forum selection clause as drafted enforceable against Seung barring her lawsuit in the United States? Why or why not? [Seung v. Regent Seven Seas Cruises, Inc., 2010 U.S. App. EXIS 17449 (11th Cir., August 19, 2010).]