Exception Loophole: There have been a number of exceptions by the FSIA for the provision of remedies for judiciary that include the ability for enforcing the arbitration agreements, for the private parties that deal with the states for the performance of commercial activities. The application of these exceptions can be done in this particular case as well. In the context of the exceptions related to the FSIA, it is important for understanding the cases when the foreign state will not be having the immunity against litigation (Mofidi, 1999). The application of the commercial activity exception in some cases has resulted in injustice and United States Courts are well aware of this loophole. For instance in the case of the Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, the United States Supreme Court highlighted this fact. Nelson an American citizen alleged that his foreign employer abused him using Saudi law enforcement. Nelson sued the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia citing injuries. The Court of Appeals granted jurisdiction based on the commercial activity exception clause. However the Supreme Court at that time denied jurisdiction, because his claim was not based on a commercial activity, his claim was on law enforcement actions taken by the Government and this could not be viewed as a commercial activity. The FSIA of 1976 has sharply curtailed the traditional rights of foreign states related to absolute immunity. The enactment being done in response towards the increased involvement of the foreign government within the place of market, there has been an enlargement done by the jurisdiction of federal courts in FSIA over the foreign states that have been engaging within the commercial activity (Mofidi, 1999). These commercial activities are the ones having direct effect within the United States. Applying the context of this case appeal and judgment, it can be said that the 2020 breach and choice to pursue a different buyer is a commercial actions, and there cannot be stated to be non-commercial, so MedCare has a good chance in the appeals.