Prior to 1941, Kalmich owned a business in Yugoslavia. In 1941, the Nazis confiscated his property as a result of Kalmich’s Jewish heritage and faith. Bruno purchased the business from the Nazis in 1942 without knowledge of the potential unlawful conversion. Kalmich contended that because the confiscation was in violation of well-defined principles of international law prior to the German occupation, the transfer to Bruno was ineffective. Kalmich sought to apply a 1946 Yugoslavian law called “Law Concerning the Treatment of Property Taken Away from the Owner.” That law provided that where property is taken from its owners, the owner may bring an action against “responsible persons” for recovery.
a. Did the act of state doctrine apply in this case?
b. If not, what should be the result in an American court? Explain.