PLEASE DO NOT COPY FROM OTHER CHEGG ANSWERS PLEASE I REALLY NEED HELP FOR COPYING FROM OTHER CHEGG QUESTION I WILL GIVE DOWNVOTE

IT IS BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT

A Case Analysis gives students a chance to demonstrate critical thinking skills as well as knowledge of legal vocabulary. Everything you need to successfully answer the Question Presented is provided herein or in your text. DO NOT use external resources.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Water Steamship Corporation (Defendant) is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in New Orleans, Louisiana.

The Government of Egypt Procurement Office (EPO) (Plaintiff) is a foreign governmental entity with its place of business at the Egyptian Embassy in Washington, D.C. The EPO purchases military equipment from the U.S. for export to Egypt.

On or about May 14, 1998, at Alexandria, Egypt, Waterman accepted Plaintiffs cargo shipment of two military helicopters in good order and condition for direct transportation on Defendants ship M/V ROBERT E. LEE to the Port of New Orleans, for ultimate delivery in Panama City, Florida. On or about August 27, 1998, the helicopters arrived in Panama City, Florida seriously damaged and depreciated in value.

Plaintiff filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on August 14, 2001. Defendant moved for dismissal on the ground that the venue in Maryland is improper. In support of its filing in Maryland, EPO stated that it leases a warehouse in Maryland, where EPO employs and agent to arrange for cargo transports. Waterman has carried numerous shipments booked through the facility. Waterman is listed in shipping directories in Maryland. Waterman points out that the M/V ROBERT E. LEE was never present in the port or waters of Baltimore, that no parties in suite reside in Maryland, and that the contract in question was signed outside of Maryland.

RULE

For United States District Court for the District of Maryland to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant, Water Steamship Corporation, due process requires that it have at least minimum contacts with Maryland. "Minimum contacts" over a non-resident defendant, such as the Water Steamship Corporation, may be established if it can be shown that the Water Steamship Corporation has purposefully directed its activities towards the residents of Maryland.

QUESTION PRESENTED

Does the United States District Court for the District of Maryland have personal (in personam) jurisdiction over Water Steamship Corporation?

ASSIGNMENT

This week, you have your second Case Analysis due. For this assignment and all Case Analysis assignments going forward, you will structure your writing using the CRAC format--Conclusion-Rule-Analysis-Conclusion (CRAC). This may be new and different. More detail on the CRAC format is below. You can also find practice for this format in Introduction for Legal Analysis and Writing."

Case Analysis #2 requires you to reference back to our study of jurisdiction in Module 3/Chapter 3. Please answer the Question Presented following the Conclusion-Rule-Analysis-Conclusion (CRAC) format (discussed below), with the provided RULE.

CONCLUSION-RULE-ANALYSIS-CONCLUSION (CRAC) FORMAT

Please note that you are writing an answer in paragraph format with the paragraph following the Conclusion-Rule-Analysis-Conclusion format. You are not submitting any bulleted items or lists. You may find practice for this format in Introduction for Legal Analysis and Writing."

Please note that the first sentence is a conclusion, also known as the answer to the QUESTION PRESENTED in the case.

The next step is the rule. I provide the RULE above. You must include all sentences that comprise the RULE in your rule of your Conclusion-Rule-Analysis-Conclusion (CRAC) format. To do so, merely copy and past all sentences of the RULE into your Case Analysis after your first conclusion.

Your next sentences comprise your analysis and require you to analyze the facts of the case against the rule. Look to the elements in your rule. For example, you can look to the rule to identify whether the defendant had minimum contacts under Maryland law.

Your opinion is not part of this analysis. You must provide fact-based analysis as why you conclude that the United States District Court for the District of Maryland did or did not have personal (in personam) jurisdiction over Water Steamship Corporation.

One sentence is usually not adequate for analysis, and the analysis is 20 out of 30 points for the assignment. Please look to all information provided in the case and compare it to the rule in your analysis.

Your last sentence should mirror your first sentence, as the second conclusion.If you first conclusion is,

"The United States District Court for the District of Maryland had personal (in personam) jurisdiction over Water Steamship Corporation,"

your last conclusion, which is your last sentence in your answer, may be,

"Accordingly, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland had personal (in personam) jurisdiction over Water Steamship Corporation.