In Yahoo! v. La Ligue Contre Racisme et L’Antisemitisme, Yahoo! ran an auction site
that allowed user to post and sell items to buyers from around the world. Yahoo!’s
policies for the items being sold included prohibitions on particular illegal items from
being sold. It also told sellers that they could not list items in jurisdictions where the
sale of the item would violate the jurisdiction’s applicable laws. La Ligue Contre
Racisme et L’Antisemitisme (LICRA) sued Yahoo! in France under a French law
prohibiting the sale of Nazi and Third Reich related items. The French court held that
Yahoo! violated the French code with their sale. Yahoo! filed a suit in U.S. District
court claiming that the ban infringed on impermissibly on its rights under the U.S.
Constitution’s First Amendment and asked that the court find that the French court’s
holding was not enforceable under American law. The district court held that:
A.U.S. courts are bound by foreign judgments if the two countries both recognize the
sovereignty of each other.
B.U.S. courts are not bound by foreign judgments if the judgment is inconsistent with
Constitution and laws of the United States.
C.U.S. courts are bound by foreign judgments based on the principles set forth through
comity and the Vienna Treaty.
D.U.S. courts are not bound by foreign judgments based on the idea of sovereign
immunity.
Joyce contracted with Mega Drug Corporation to buy vitamins on behalf of Howard, a
personal trainer. Howard told Joyce to use her own name and not to disclose to Mega
that she was working for Howard. If Joyce signs the contract in her own name only and
Howard won’t honor it:
A.Joyce can’t be sued because she’s only an agent.
B.Joyce is liable but may sue Howard based on indemnification.
C.Joyce is liable but may sue Howard based on failure of loyalty.
D.Howard has no liability to anyone since his name was never disclosed.