Download Model question papers & previous years question papers

Posted Date: 05 Jan 2009      Posted By:: anita    Member Level: Gold  Points: 5 (₹ 1)

2008 Pondicherry University Commerce M.B.A International Business MBA Degree Examination, december 2008, International Business Laws Question paper



Course: M.B.A International Business   University/board: Pondicherry University





MBA 3813

M.B.A. DEGREE EXAMINATION, DECEMBER 2008.

Third Semester

International Business.

Paper XIII - INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS LAW

Time : Three hours Maximum : 100 Marks

PART A --- (5 x 6 = 30 marks)
Answer any FIVE out of the following

1. State the legal Provisions relating to international business payments.

2. “Business includes common laws” Discuss.

3. What are the rights and duties of agents?

4. Explain the treaties relating to telecommunications.

5. Explain the regulations relating to franchising.

6. How tax collected on the on-line financial transfers?

7. Bring out the legal safeguards available for cross border transaction.

8. Explain the procedure of sharing international business tax revenues.

PART B --- (5 x 10 = 50 marks)
Answer any FIVE out of the following.
9. Explain the nature and complexities of international business legal frame work.

10. Discuss fully the regulations relating to E-Commerce

11. Write short notes on :
(a) Joint ventures
(b) Patents
© Trade marks

12. Explain any one bilateral treaties relating to tax laws.

13. Discuss the laws and regulations on trade in endangered species.

14. Explain the charter of WTO.

15. Discuss the GATT provisions relating to
(a) Technical standards and
(b) Custom valuation.
16. Explain the complications of WTO towards TRIMS.

PART C --- (1 x 20 = 20 marks)
Case study ---- Compulsory

17. Kodak started selling photographic equipment on Japan 1889 and by the 1930s it had a dominant position in the Japanese market. But after world war II, U.S occupation forces persuaded most U.S companies including Kodak to leave Japan to give the war torn local industry a chance to recover. Kodak was effectively priced out of the market by tariff barriers; over the next 35 years Fuji gained 70% share of the market while Kodak saw its share slip to miserable 5%. During this period Kodak limited much of its activities in Japan t the sale of Technology.
This situation persisted until early 1980s when Fuji launched an aggressive export drive, attacking Kodak in the north American and European markets. Deciding that a good offence is the best defence, in 1984 and the next six year, Kodak outspent Fuji in Japan by a ratio of more than 3 to 1. It erected mammoth $ 1 million near signs as land marks in many of the Japan’s big cities and also sponsored Sumo wrestling, Judo, and tennis tournaments and even the Japanese team at the 1988 Seoul Olympics. Thus Kodak has put Fuji on defensive, forcing it to divert resources from overseas to defend itself at home. By 1990’s, some of Fuji’s best executives had been pulled back to Tokyo.
All this success, however , was apparently not enough for Kodak. In may 1995, Kodak filed a petition with the US trade office, that accured the Japanese government and Fuji of “Unfair trading practices”. According to the petition, the Japanese government helped to create a ‘ profile sanctuary’ for Fuji in Japan by systematically denying Kodak access to Japanese distribution channels for consumer film and paper. Kodak claims Fuji has effectively shut Kodak products out of four distributors that have a 70% share of the photo distribution market. Fuji has an equity position in two of the distributors, gives large year –end relates and cash payments to all four distributors as a reward for their loyalty to Fuji, and owns stakes in the banks that finance them. Kodak also claims that Fuji uses similar tactics to control 430 wholesale photo furnishing labs in Japan to which it is the exclusive supplier. Moreover Kodak’s petition claims that the Japanese government has actively encourages these practices.
But Fuji a similar counter arguments relating to Kodak in U.S. and states bluntly that Kodak’s charges are a clear case of the pot calling the kettle back.

(a) What was the critical catalyst that led Kodak to start taking the Japanese market seriously?
(b) From the evidence ggiven in the case do you think Kodak’s charges of unfair trading practices against Fuji are valid? Support your answer.
(c) What legal remedies available to Kodak as well as Fuji, under the above circumstances.





Return to question paper search

Next Question Paper: MBA Degree Examination, December 2008, Global Marketing Management

Previous Question Paper: HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL CERTIFICATE (STD. XII)

Related Question Papers:


  • MBA Degree Examination, December 2008


  • data structure


  • data structure


  • mathematics-III


  • M.B.A - Marketing Management [3rd Semester] Industrial Marketing


  • Categories


    Submit Previous Years University Question Papers and make money from adsense revenue sharing program

    Are you preparing for a university examination? Download model question papers and practise before you write the exam.


    Looking for University or College admissions in India for 2019 - 2020 academic year?

    APPLY NOW
    Top Contributors
    TodayLast 7 Daysmore...

    Awards & Gifts
     
    SpiderWorks Technologies Pvt Ltd, Kochi - India. © All Rights Reserved.