Revised ppt and proj due in 24 hours

profilecombs

attached

  • 3 years ago
  • 45
files (7)

FeedbackforProject1carz.docx

Feedback for Project 1: Introduction to the Legal Environment of Business

Top of Form

Submission Feedback

Overall Feedback

Jan 31/Carz report final submission: this needs substantial revision in order to pass. You have one opportunity to resubmit before Feb 13 resubmit deadline. If you would like a phone conference, let me know. Suggest you re/read Jan 15 guidance email and announcements about this deliverable and sourcing. First, formatting. Too many headings. Just have intro, arguments for plaintiff, arguments for defendant, and conclusion. Here all the headings makes for choppy writing and does not show how one legal concept flows into the other. The intro is just a summation of the case facts, nothing else, with a cite to the case facts at the end of summation, and put case facts in reference list. And page numbers on all reports please. Second, sourcing -- as I've said before you must rely on the learning resources in the classroom. Your outside research has lead you down a rabbit hole and you are not focused on the issues you need to be focused on. Third, you have to talk about both Wilson and Mitchell as both are equally important. Fourth, in Arguments for P and then D, these are the main sections of your paper. You must be methodical. One legal principle per paragraph; define, cite, apply (DCA). Every time. If you are not doing that, you are not adding to the legal analysis of your paper. In P, start with what is agency; DCA. Second paragraph, general v limited agency; DCA. Then you can go on to concepts like vicarious liability, respondeat superior, duty of care, etc. One principle per paragraph; define, cite, apply to Wilson and Mitchell. Once you finish P side, then you move on to D side with same methodical approach. Finally, the conclusion is a brief summation of each side's argument without deciding the case. Let me know if you have questions.

Jan 31/Blue Mood final: this MPs. You need to work on explicitly providing the legal definition of a concept before you talk about it. You elude to the definition of concepts here but need to be more direct. But an improvement. 

Bottom of Form