Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba425 U.S. 682 (1976).

I. Factsa. This case was granted certiorari by the Supreme Court of the United States on an

appeal from the Court of Appeals in 1976.

b. The Cuban government Interventors nationalized five major cigar plants which imported cigars to different places including the United States (Where Dunhill was located). The importers mistakenly paid the interventors for services rendered before they were in possession of the factory and which was not legally theirs to keep. The District Court ruled that the importers were allowed to set-off the amount they mistakenly paid the interventors. However, Dunhills pre-intervention payment exceeded the post-intervention greatly and the District Court ruled that the interventors needed to pay Dunhill the difference. The Court of Appeals, however, said that to require the government to remedy the situation by paying the difference between the pre-intervention amount and the post-intervention amount violated the act of state doctrine, and was not in the power of the court.

c. Plaintiff: Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. Dunhill claims that the Cuban government owes them money after Dunhill mistakenly paid the interventors for a pre-intervention shipment of cigars. All money for shipments made before the intervention was awarded to the former owners of the plants and not to the nationalized government of Cuba. Therefore, Dunhill claims that the interventors took money that did not belong to them and asks for repayment.

d. Defendant: Republic of Cuba Cuba claims the Act of State Doctrine and Sovereign Immunity as its defense in this case. Cuba claims that the interventors were acting on behalf of the state and are thus not subject to decisions of the American court system.

II. Questions/Issuesa. Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to hear this case?

b. Does the Act of State Doctrine/Sovereign immunity apply to Cuba in this case?

III.Decisionsa. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction in this case because the importer (Dunhill)

was an American citizen. In addition, this case also states that Cuba consented to have the case tried in the American court system in a previous case when discussing whether the interventors had claim to all profits of post-intervention shipments.

b. The Court concluded that the Act of State Doctrine/Sovereign Immunity did not apply in this case because Cuba was acting in a completely commercial action.

Refusing to re-pay funds that were mistakenly paid to them was concluded not to be an act of state but an act of commerce. Cuba failed to prove that it was fulfilling any governmental role by refusing to pay Dunhill. Because the court ruled that Cuba was not acting as a state, but as a completely commercial actor, it applied the restrictive sovereign immunity doctrine which states that foreign head of states are not immune from repaying debts or damages regarding situations that are completely commercial in nature.

IV. Principlesa. The key international point in this case is sovereign immunity.

b. This case discusses the Act of State Doctrine and Sovereign immunity and how they are restricted when foreign governments/heads of state act in completely commercial ways. This is known as the restrictive sovereign immunity doctrine.

V. ConclusionThis case is important because it highlights the restrictions place on sovereigns and their immunity in the international realm. Though the heads of recognized states are given some privileges and immunities, they are not protected in the realm of commercial action when acting only as commercial actors.

VI. BibliographyAlfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Cuba, 425 U.S. 682 (1976).

VII. Submitted Ashley Wilburn October 7, 2009