U.S. export control is mainly implemented in accordance with the *Export Control Regulations* ("EAR") formulated by the Bureau of Industry and Security, United States Department of Commerce ("BIS"). Its core lies in imposing export controls of varying degrees and in different forms on various products or services subject to the EAR when they are exported to different countries or regions. The definition of "subject to the EAR" under the EAR is extremely broad. It covers not only products or services located within the territory of the U.S., or owned or produced by U.S. individuals or entities, but also: all items currently located within the territory of the U.S. regardless of their origin or destination; items of U.S. origin regardless of their current location; products that contain or use U.S.-origin components or technologies exceeding a specified threshold (the threshold is 10% for most items or services, and 25% for some categories of items or activities); products embedded with U.S. software; and products directly produced by using U.S. technologies, software or equipment (see Article 734 of the EAR).
The two cases recently handled by the author both involve the issue of whether a landlord shall refund the rental deposit. Such issues usually arise from contracts that are not duly performed in full, that is, residential lease contracts terminated before the completion of performance, including termination by agreement (subletting) or termination for breach of contract. Under such circumstances, almost all landlords confiscate the deposit in a one-size-fits-all manner, and may also claim high liquidated damages from the tenant at the same time. Then, should the rental deposit be refunded after all? Even if the tenant has settled all relevant fees and charges when surrendering the leased premises, is the tenant bound to leave the deposit at the arbitrary disposal of the landlord?
Authors of this Article: Shen Qing, Huang Jiaping
Source: Wu Tao, Lawyer
