Ansel, Inc., was a California based company that manufactured and sold guns

Ansel, Inc., was a California based company that manufactured and sold guns. The Venezuelan military contacted Ansel and the parties entered into a contract that required the Venezuelan military to buy guns from Ansel over a four year period. During year three of the Ansel/Venezuelan military contract, Venezuela’s government was overthrown and a democratic government was put into place. The new Venezuelan regime desired to reduce the size of the military and chose to no longer honor the military’s contract with Ansel. Ansel was left with an huge inventory of guns that it now had to sell at a much lower price. Ansel filed a lawsuit in the United States against the Venezuelan government for breach of contract.1. Does the act of state doctrine apply and prevent Ansel from trying to enforce the contract in court? Why?2. Should the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) prevent this lawsuit and protect the Venezuelan government from being sued by Ansel? Why or why not?3. Assume a U.S. court hears Ansel’s case and finds in favor of Ansel. Ansel is awarded several hundred thousand dollars in damages. Unfortunately, the Venezuelan government has no assets located in the United States, but does have assets located in Canada. What doctrine might assist Ansel in going after the Venezuelan government’s assets in Canada to satisfy the U.S. judgment.? Explain.4. Assume that once the new government of Venezuela came into power, they passed a law making it illegal to purchase guns from foreign gun manufacturers. Following passage of the law, Ansel filed its case. What principle or doctrine might a U.S. court use to support its decision to dismiss Ansel’s case? Explain.