True or false with explanations: Robco, Inc. v. Honduras (Cross 8th Ed. p. 175) Robco, Inc., was a Florida arms dealer.

[answerhappygod]

True or false with explanations:
Robco, Inc. v. Honduras (Cross 8th Ed. p.175)
Robco, Inc., was a Florida arms dealer. The armed forcesof Honduras contracted to purchase weapons from Robco over asix-year period. After the government was replaced and ademocracy installed, the Honduran government sought to reduce thesize of its military, and its relationship with Robcodeteriorated. Honduras refused to honor the contract bypurchasing the inventory of arms, which Robco could sell only at amuch lower price. Robco filed a suit in a federal districtcourt in the United States to recover damages for this breach ofcontract by the government of Honduras.
1. Robco’s lawsuit against the government of Honduras will bepermitted to proceed in federal district court, because Honduras isnot exempt from jurisdiction in U.S. courts under the ForeignSovereign Immunities Act.
2. Robco’s lawsuit against Honduras will likely be dismissed,because permitting Robco to sue Honduras violated the act of statedoctrine under which the courts of one country will not questionthe validity of public acts committed by a foreigngovernment.
3. If the new Honduras government enacted a law making itillegal to purchase weapons from foreign arms dealers, the federaldistrict court would likely dismiss Robco’s lawsuit againstHonduras.
4. Assuming the federal district court hears the case and awardsdamages to Robco, but the government of Honduras has no assets inthe United States that can be used to satisfy the judgment, Robcowould be unable to obtain payment of the judgment againstHonduras.
5. If the government of Honduras violated the human rights ofits citizens, Robco might be found liable for those violationsunder the Alien Tort Claims Act, if it was aware of thoseviolations and could have taken steps to prevent thoseviolations.