• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Interesting factoid about Guantanamo Bay...

Well if theres a change in govt doesnt that cancel all the prior regimes contracts??? What does international law say? Is the post Saddam Iraq bound to contracts made by Saddams regime?
 
Er, the deal for the Guantanamo Bay property was worked out before Castro came to power and he has always had the position that the contract should be voided since the deal was done with the previous government and the new government would have never signed on to such a thing. However, the contract was duly executed so there is no legal way for Cuba to evict the USA.

As for the uncashed checks, if Cuba were to cash them then by doing so they would be conceding that they have accepted the terms of the contract and they do not want to make such a concession.
 
Michael Redman said:
Legally? Why?
Click to expand...

This is actually incorrect from a property law perspective. The pre-Castro government sold the use of the property to the U.S. Therefore, the pre-Castro government no longer "owned" the use of that land. When the Castro government took over, they assumed ownership of all property owned by the pre-Castro government. Therefore, the Castro government did not get the right to use that land.

Absent a termination provision, or some other like clause in the lease, the U.S. would keep it's rights to use the property. If I were to buy an apartment building I couldn't simply deny the existence of a lease and start evicting people.
 
Hold up.. Wasnt there talk that the reason some countries wanted to stop the US from going into Iraq cause they had all sorts of oil etc.. contracts wh Saddam. Are you saying that Iraq still has to honor those contracts?
 
Tmy said:
Hold up.. Wasnt there talk that the reason some countries wanted to stop the US from going into Iraq cause they had all sorts of oil etc.. contracts wh Saddam. Are you saying that Iraq still has to honor those contracts?
Click to expand...

Good question!

When the war was actually going on and the USA had gleefully thrown off that pesky international support and the politics that goes along with it, the Bush Administration was strongly hinting that the old contracts Iraq had with governments like Russia and France would not be honored under the new regime.

However, once it became clear just how big of mess Iraq was shaping up to be, I noticed that the Bushies stopped talking like that.

My guess is that the contracts signed by Saddam will still be honored once Iraq is stabilized since the USA now needs the help of governments like Russia and France.
 
Tmy said:
Hold up.. Wasnt there talk that the reason some countries wanted to stop the US from going into Iraq cause they had all sorts of oil etc.. contracts wh Saddam. Are you saying that Iraq still has to honor those contracts?
Click to expand...

Depends on the contract and the rights and parties involved. Plus, contract law is different from property law, in that in a contract, promises are exchanged. In a property transaction rights to land are exchanged for money.

In the Cuba case, the former goverment sold something (the use of land) in exchange for money to be paid in installments. The former government no longer owned that thing, so when the new government took everything the old government had they didn;t have that thing either.

It is clearer if we switch the thing from "land" to "T.V. set". If you bought a TV set from the former Cuban government, you now own that TV and they don't. When the new government seizes all the assets of the old government, they don't get the TV set and have no basis to demand its return.

An ongoing contract is different. It does not as a matter of rule pass on to a successor. For example, if Derek Jeter were to die, and I was his only heir, I would recieve all assets owned by him. I however, would be under no obligation to play shortstop for the Yankees, and they would not be under a duty to pay me for those services. Contracts are exchanges of promises, and those promises are usually seen by law as personal. There are exceptions, of course. It really depends on the details of the contract.
 
Also it is sort of a matter of honor (and future need) for a new government to hold to (as much as possible anyway) the agreements made by its predecessors. I mean if you overthrew the US gov and then promptly declared all existing debts void you're not going to make too many friends.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom