After reviewing the simulation involving CadMex and Gentura, I have come to the conclusion that doing business in foreign countries is wrought with obstacles. From culture to unfamiliar law to the possibility of a government coup, doing business with other countries seems to not worth the effort for American companies. According to "White and Williams, LLP" (n.d.), “International transactions and dispute resolutions require both an understanding of the law and a sensitivity to foreign culture, politics, formal and informal power structures and decision-making approaches” (para. 1). Jurisdiction would need to be addressed before any debates or agreements can be met. Does the host country have the right to hear and make a legal decision or since the company is American, would the U.S. courts be the ones to decide over any disputes? The three basic questions that need to answered before going forward are which country’s courts should have jurisdiction to hear the dispute, which country’s laws should be used to decide on the dispute, and if any foreign judgment attained overseas might be enforceable in the home country (Barclay's International Trade, n.d.)? Practical considerations to think about would be if the laws of that country would be that any more business deals wouldn’t be allowed or if the laws of that country protect the foreign business partner from any liability. The factors working against CadMex granting sublicensing agreements is that they open themselves up to the potential of lawsuits being brought against them. Host countries local laws and customs prevail over the operating country’s own laws and customs since the host country is allowing the foreign business to operate on their soil. There has to be a