Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v.

Republic of Cuba
425 U.S. 682 (1976).
I. Facts
a. 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 preintervention 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 postintervention 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/Issues

a. 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.Decisions
a. 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. Principles
a. 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. Conclusion
This 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. Bibliography
Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Cuba, 425 U.S. 682 (1976).
VII.

Submitted
Ashley Wilburn October 7, 2009