Practice question
A foreign government operates an ordinary laundry service for paying civilian customers and sues a local distributor for detergent delivered under its commercial supply agreement. The distributor counterclaims for unpaid rebates under that same agreement. No treaty provision controls, and the foreign government argues that filing as plaintiff cannot affect immunity. Which analysis is best?
- Its foreign status ends the inquiry regardless of the transaction.
- The distributor wins the rebates automatically.
- Only the distributor’s nationality determines immunity.
- Both the proprietary transaction and the State’s pursuit of affirmative relief undermine its categorical immunity argument.
- A claim involving detergent must always be a sovereign defense act.
Legal references
- United States of America v. Guinto, G.R. Nos. 76607 et al., February 26, 1990, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/feb1990/gr_76607_1990.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.