The issues with regards to both international law as well as law of the jurisdiction you are in are answered at a couple of different levels. In this case we have bicycle parts made and purchased from separate entities and when accidents occur the responsible parties become convoluted. In working backwards, we know that Heathrow was jogging in the bicycle path. With this said the question must be asked as to whether or not this is against the city policy/law. If the bicycle path is for bicycles only then on a technicality not only Zorro but also the manufacturer and the company in which sold the bike may not be responsible.
In regards to the arbitration clause within the sales agreement this clause is only for that of the company who sold the bike to Zorro; Nome’s Cyclery. This does not seem to extend to the Abrams Bicycle Company nor to the Frame maker, Cherokee who installed the handlebars upon the bike frame. So we have the issue as to exactly what part of the bike malfunctioned and which company deals with that part. Nome’s Cyclery may not even be responsible for this injury. The ICC deals with international disputes and has their own arbitration court.
Along with this the determination of whether or not either Abrams Company or Cherokee is part of the CBERA beneficiary will also help determine how much legal responsibility the parties have depending on whether or not the bicycle parts are considered eligible and if the countries, France and Vietnam are part of this act. The CBERA Act deals mostly with taxes and tarriffs but also if the item was assembled in one of the CBERA countries then the relations with that country gives a different perspective from a political viewpoint. Though at this time France nor Vietnam are part of the CBERA Act.
Let’s assume that both these companies that are in different countries also have the United States permission in which to do business with US consumers. This makes these companies subject to service. (Suing Out-of-State (Foreign) Corporations). With this in mind, if Nome’s Cyclery is considered as part of the reason why the two foreign countries ship their parts and bikes for sales to the US then by continuous business relationss and by proxy, Nome becomes a part of the potential suit from at least Zorrow. International Shoe Co. v. Washington attests to this. (International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310, 316-17 (1945).
The reason being that the possibility of filing against Nome’s as a subsidiary is due to the fact that there is more than just solicitation of business being done. (Green v. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. , 205 U. S. 530 (1907)) If it is decided that Heathrow violated the law when injured then there is little to no recourse for compensation even if injured against Zorrow. Injuries sustained during the commision of a crime or that of an infraction would exonerate Zorrow. Insurance companies frequently have this clause and courts uphold this clause threoughout the United States (Cara T. -Email).
Through an ancilliary option she may be able to be joined through any lawsuit Zorrow may file. Works Cited Tapken, Cara. Email Interview, May 3, 2009. Daniel C. Fleming, Esq. and Aurora Aragon, Esq. Legal Aspects of an International Trade Business http://www. rogercohen. com/training/legal_aspects. shtml#Resolving%20International%20Disputes International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310, 316-17 (1945). Schaffer, Earle and Agusti, International Business Law and Its Environment, Ohio: South-Western College/West, 2008.