Practice question
A foreign State awards a concession to operate a profit-making barbershop open as an ordinary commercial service. It is sued over the concession contract. In another case, the same State is sued over a contract solely for improvements essential to a naval installation’s defense operations. Assume no treaty provision or express waiver resolves either suit. Under the restrictive doctrine discussed in Guinto, which approach is correct?
- Treat both contracts as automatic waivers simply because they are written.
- Treat both as immune solely because a foreign State is a party.
- Treat the commercial concession as potentially subject to suit, while distinguishing the defense contract as governmental in character.
- Treat the defense contract as commercial solely because a contractor expects profit.
- Treat the commercial concession as governmental solely because it is near a military facility.
Legal references
- United States of America v. Guinto, G.R. Nos. 76607, 79470, 80018 and 80258, February 26, 1990, main decision, restrictive immunity and suability distinguished from liability: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/feb1990/gr_76607_1990.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.