Need help

BUS 206 Final Project Guidelines and Rubric

Overview Business law impacts our everyday lives, both personally and professionally. Businesses enter contracts, manufacture goods, s ell services and products, and engage in employment and labor practices—activities that must all adhere to certain laws and regulations. Recognizing and evaluating legal issues is a fundamental skill that will help you navigate commercial relationships and avoid potential problems in the business world. The final assessment for this course will require you to analyze three case studies and produce a short report for each. You will apply your legal knowledge and your understanding of the types of business organizations. The project is divided into three milestones, which will be submitted at various points throughout the course to scaffold learning and ensure quality final submissions. These milestones will be submitted in Modules Three, Five, and Six. The final project will be submitted in Module Seven. This assessment addresses the following course outcomes:

 Apply appropriate elements of the U.S. legal system and the U.S. Constitution to business scenarios for impacting decisions in authentic situat ions  Apply concepts of ethics, morality, and civil and criminal law to business scenarios for informed corporate decision making

 Analyze the basic elements of a contract and a quasi -contract for their application to commercial and real estate scenarios

 Differentiate between the various types of business organizations for informing rights and responsibilities

Prompt Imagine yourself as a paralegal working in a law office that has been tasked with reviewing three current cases. You will review the case studi es and compose a short report for each, applying your legal knowledge and understanding of the types of business organizations. In each of the three reports, you will focus on areas of law covered in this course. Case Study One focuses on the legal system, criminal law, and ethics. Case Study Two concentrates on contracts and landlord- tenant law. Case Study Three involves environmental law and business organizations.

Case Study One Chris, Matt, and Ian, who live in California, have decided to start a business selling an aftershave lotion called Funny Face over the internet. They contract with Novelty Now Inc., a company based in Florida, to manufacture and distribute the product. Chris frequently meets with a representative from Novelty Now to design the product and to plan marketing and distribution strategies. In fact, to increase the profit margin, Chris direct s Novelty Now to substitute PYR (a low- cost chemical emulsifier) for the compound in Novelty Now’s original formula. PYR is not FDA approved. Funny Face is marketed nationally on the radio and in newspapers, as well as on the web and Facebook. Donald Margolin, a successful CEO and public speaker, buys one bottle of Funny Face over the internet. After he uses it once, his face turns a permanent shade of blue. Donald Margolin and his company, Donald Margolin Empire Inc., file suit in the state of New York against Novelty Now Inc. and Chris, Matt, and Ian, alleging negligence and seeking medical costs and compensation for the damage to his face and business reputation. It is discovered that PYR caused Margolin’s skin discoloration. The website for Funny Face states that anyone buying their product cannot take Chris, Matt, and Ian to court. Novelty Now’s contract with the three men states that all disputes must be brought in the state of Florida.

Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed:

A. Apply the rules of jurisdiction to the facts of this case and determine what jurisdiction(s) would be appropriate for Margolin ’s lawsuit against Funny Face and Novelty Now, respectively. Consider federal court, state court, and long arm principles in your analysis.

B. Assume all parties agree to pursue alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Analyze the advantages and disadvantages of two types of ADR appropriate for this case. Be sure to define the characteristics of each in your answer.

C. Applying what you have learned about ADR, which type would each party (Funny Face, Novelty Now, and Margolin) prefer and why? D. Apply concepts of criminal law and discuss whether or not corporations and/or corporate officers may be held liable for criminal acts. E. Identify, per the classification of crimes in the text, any potential criminal acts by Funny Face and/or Novelty Now. F. Assume the use of the emulsifier PYR, at the direction of Chris, is a criminal offense. Apply concepts of criminal law and discuss the potential criminal

liability of Funny Face, Chris, Matt, Ian, and Novelty Now. Include support for your conclus ion. G. Apply at least three guidelines of ethical decision-making to evaluate ethical issues within the case study.

Case Study Two Sam Stevens lives in an apartment building where he has been working on his new invention, a machine that plays the sound of a barking dog to scare off potential intruders. A national chain store that sells safety products wants to sell Sam’s product exclusively. Although Sam and the chain store never signed a contract, Sam verbally told a store manager several months ago that he would ship 1,000 units. Sam comes home from work one day and finds two letters in his mailbox. One is an eviction notice from his landlord, Quinn, telling him he has to be out of the apartment in 30 days because his barking device has been bothering the other tenants. It also states that Sam was not allowed to conduct a business from his apartment. Sam is angry because he specifically told Quinn that he was working on a ne w invention, and Quinn had wished him luck. The second letter is from the chain store, demanding that Sam deliver the promised 1,000 units immediately. Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed:

A. Analyze the elements of this case to determine whether a valid contract exists between Sam and the chain store. Support your response by identifying the elements of a valid contract in your analysis.

B. Assume there is not a valid contract between Sam and the chain store. Analyze the elements of a quasi-contract and a promissory estoppel to determine whether the chain store would prevail on a claim of either. Why or why not? Include support for your analysis.

C. Identify the rights and obligations of both the landlord and tenant under a standard residential lease agreement. D. Based upon those rights and obligations, does Sam’s landlord have grounds to evict? Why or why not? E. Further, what defenses might Sam raise to an eviction action? Support your response.

Case Study Three Jeb and Josh are lifelong friends. Jeb is a wealthy wind-power tycoon, and Josh is an active outdoor enthusiast. They have decided to open a sporting goods store, Arcadia Sports, using Jeb’s considerable financial resources and Josh’s extensive knowledge of all things outdoors. In addition to selling sporting goods, the store will provide whitewater rafting, rock-climbing, and camping excursions. Jeb will not participate in the day-to-day operations of the store or in the excursions. Both Jeb and Josh have agreed to split the profits down the middle. On the first whitewater r afting excursion, a customer named Jane falls off the raft and suffers a severe concussion and permanent damage to her spine. Meanwhile, Jeb ’s wind farms are shut down by government regulators, and he goes bankrupt, leaving extensive personal creditors looking to collect. Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed:

A. Identify the main types of business entities and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each. B. Recommend a specific business entity for Arcadia Sports and include your reasoning. C. Based on the characteristics of each type of business entity, determine the type under which Jeb and Josh would be personally liable to Jane for

damages. D. Based on each type of business entity, analyze the ability of Jeb’s personal creditors to seize the assets and/or profits of Arcadia Sports.

Milestones Milestone One: Case Study One In Module Three, you will submit the first milestone. For this milestone, you will review Case Study One and compose a short report, applying your legal knowledge and understanding of the types of business organizations. Case Study One focuses on the legal system, criminal law, and ethics. This milestone will be graded with the Milestone One Rubric. Milestone Two: Case Study Two In Module Five, you will submit the second milestone. For this milestone, you will review Case Study Two and compose a short report, applying your legal knowledge and understanding of the types of business organizations. Case Study Two concentrates on contracts and landlord-tenant law. This milestone will be graded with the Milestone Two Rubric. Milestone Three: Case Study Three Discussion In Module Six, you will submit the third milestone. This milestone is a discussion regarding business entities and their advantages and disadvantages. Your active participation in this discussion forum is essential to i mproving your understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the various business entities. Actively engaging with your peers will help you complete the remaining critical elements in the third case study for your final submission. This milestone will be graded with the Milestone Three Rubric.

Final Project Submission: Case Study Analyses In Module Seven, you will submit your final project. It should be a complete, polished artifact containing all of the critical elements of the final product. It should reflect the incorporation of feedback gained throughout the course. This submission will be graded with the Final Project Rubric.

Final Project Rubric Guidelines for Submission: Each of the three reports should be one to two pages in length. The documents should use double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, and one-inch margins. Citations must be given in APA format. Instructor Feedback: This activity uses an integrated rubric in Blackboard. Students can view instructor feedback in the Grade Center. For more in formation, review these instructions.

Critical Elements Exemplary (100%) Proficient (85%) Needs Improvement (55%) Not Evident (0%) Value

Case Study One: Rules of Jurisdiction

Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a and ci tes s chol arly res earch to s upport cl ai ms

Correctl y appl i es the rul es of juri s diction to the facts of thi s cas e and determi nes what

juri s diction(s ) woul d be appropri ate for Margol i n’s l aws ui t against Funny Face and

Novel ty Now

Appl i es the rul es of juri s dicti on and determi nes what juri s diction(s ) woul d be

appropri ate for Margol i n’s l aws ui t against Funny Face and Novel ty Now, but determi nati on

of juri s diction i s i ncorrect for thi s cas e

Does not appl y the rul es of juri s diction or determi ne what juri s diction(s ) woul d be

appropri ate for Margol i n’s l aws ui t

6

Case Study One: Alternative Dispute

Resolution

Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a and offers i ns i ght, bas ed on s chol arly res earch, as to why the chos en

types of ADR woul d be appropri ate choi ces i n thi s s i tuati on

Anal yzes the advantages and di s advantages of two types of ADR and defi nes the

characteri sti cs of each

Anal yzes the advantages and di s advantages of two types of ADR, but anal ys is i s cursory or

does not defi ne the characteri sti cs of each

Does not anal yze the advantages and di s advantages of two types of ADR

6

Case Study One: ADR Preference

Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a and offers concrete exampl es to

s ubs tanti ate and comprehens i vel y des cri be why the chos en types of ADR woul d

be preferred by the res pecti ve parti es

Appl i es knowl edge of ADR and di s cus ses whi ch types of ADR

each party (Funny Face, Novel ty Now, and Margol i n) mi ght prefer and l ogi cal ly defends choi ces

Appl i es knowl edge of ADR and di s cus ses whi ch types of ADR

each party mi ght prefer, but di s cus sion i s cursory and/or does not di s cus s reas ons for

preferences , or defens e i s i l l ogi cal

Does not appl y knowl edge of ADR or di s cus s whi ch types of

ADR each party mi ght prefer

6

Case Study One: Criminal Acts

Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a and ci tes s peci fi c, appl icable rul es of

l aw

Appl i es concepts of cri mi nal l aw and di s cus s es whether or not

corporati ons and/or corporate offi cers may be hel d l i abl e for cri mi nal acts

Appl i es concepts of cri mi nal l aw and di s cus s es whether or not

corporati ons and/or corporate offi cers may be hel d l i abl e for cri mi nal acts, but di s cus si on i s curs ory or l acks detai l

Does not appl y concepts of cri mi nal l aw or di s cuss whether

or not corporati ons and/or corporate offi cers ma y be hel d l i abl e for cri mi nal acts

6

Case Study One:

Potential Criminal Acts

Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a , and

i deas are wel l s upported wi th annotati ons from the text

Correctl y i denti fi es , per the

cl as s ification of cri mes i n the text, any potenti al cri mi nal acts by Funny Face and/or Novel ty Now

Identi fi es any potenti al cri mi nal

acts by Funny Face and/or Novel ty Now, but cri mi nal acts i denti fi ed are i ncorrect for thi s cas e

Does not i denti fy any potenti al

cri mi nal acts by Funny Face and/or Novel ty Now

6

Case Study One:

Potential Criminal Liability

Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a and

ci tes s chol arly res earch to s upport anal ys is

Appl i es concepts of cri mi nal l aw

and di s cus s es the potenti al cri mi nal l iability of Funny Face, Chri s , Matt, Ian, and Novel ty Now and i ncl udes s upport for

the concl us i on

Appl i es concepts of cri mi nal l aw

and di s cus s es the potenti al cri mi nal l iability of Funny Face, Chri s , Matt, Ian, and Novel ty Now but does not i ncl ude

s upport for the concl us i on, or s upport i s weak

Does not appl y concepts of

cri mi nal l aw or di s cuss the potenti al cri mi nal l i ability of Funny Face, Chri s , Matt, Ian, and Novel ty Now

6

Case Study One: Ethical Decision-

Making

Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a and offers i ns i ght i nto the

rel ati ons hip between ethi cs and l aw

Accuratel y appl i es at l eas t three gui del i nes of ethi cal deci s i on-

maki ng to eval uate ethi cal i s s ues wi thi n the context of the cas e s tudy

Appl i es at l eas t three gui del i nes of ethi cal deci s i on-making to

eval uate ethi cal i s s ues wi thi n the context of the cas e s tudy, but appl i cation of gui del i nes has gaps i n accuracy or l ogi c

Does not appl y at l eas t three gui del i nes of ethi cal deci s i on-

maki ng to eval uate ethi cal i s s ues wi thi n the context of the cas e s tudy

6

Case Study Two:

Valid Contract

Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a, and

anal ys is i s wel l qualified wi th concrete exampl es and i s wel l s upported and pl aus i ble

Anal yzes the el ements of the

cas e to determi ne whether a val i d contract exi s ts between Sam and the chai n s tore and s upports res pons e by i denti fyi ng

the el ements of a val i d contract

Anal yzes the el ements of the

cas e to determi ne whether a val i d contract exi s ts between Sam and the chai n s tore, but anal ys is i s i ncorrect or does not

s upport res pons e by i denti fyi ng the el ements of a val i d contract

Does not anal yze the el ements

of the cas e to determi ne whether a val i d contract exi s ts between Sam and the chai n s tore

6

Case Study Two: Quasi-Contract

Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a and ci tes s chol arly res earch to s ubs tanti ate cl aims

Anal yzes the el ements of a quas i -contract and a promi s s ory es toppel to determi ne whether

the chai n s tore woul d prevai l on a cl ai m of ei ther, l ogi cally expl ai ns why or why not, and

i ncl udes s upport for anal ys is

Anal yzes the el ements of a quas i -contract and a promi s s ory es toppel to determi ne whether

the chai n s tore woul d prevai l on a cl ai m of ei ther and expl ai ns why or why not, but the

expl anati on i s cursory and/or i l l ogi cal or does not i ncl ude s upport for anal ys is

Does not anal yze the el ements of a quas i -contract and a promi s s ory es toppel to

determi ne whether the chai n s tore woul d prevai l on a cl ai m of ei ther

6

Case Study Two: Rights and

Obligations

Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a and is accurate i n effecti vel y di s cus sing

nuanced ri ghts and obl i gati ons i n the rel ati ons hi p between the l andl ord and tenant

Correctl y determi nes the ri ghts and obl i gati ons of both the

l andl ord and tenant under a s tandard res i denti al l ease agreement

Determi nes the ri ghts and obl i gati ons of the l andl ord or

the tenant under a s tandard res i denti al l ease agreement (but not both) or i s i ncorrect i n whi ch ri ghts and obl i gati ons appl y

Does not determi ne the ri ghts and obl i gati ons of both the

l andl ord and tenant under a s tandard res i denti al l ease agreement

6

Case Study Two:

Grounds to Evict

Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a and

provi des a thorough, s tep-by- s tep anal ys is wi th s peci fi c s upporti ng evi dence appl i ed to each el ement of the rel evant

l egal tes t

Correctl y determi nes whether

Sam’s l andl ord has grounds to evi ct bas ed upon the previ ous l y s tated ri ghts and obl i gati ons

Determi nes whether Sam’s

l andl ord has grounds to evi ct but does not bas e determi nati on on the previ ous l y s tated ri ghts and obl i gati ons or

i s i ncorrect i n determi nati on

Does not determi ne whether

Sam’s l andl ord has grounds to evi ct

6

Case Study Two: Defenses

Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a and ci tes s chol arly res earch to s ubs tanti ate determi nati on

Accuratel y determi nes what defens es Sam mi ght rai s e to an evi cti on acti on and effecti vel y s upports the res pons e

Determi nes what defens es Sam mi ght rai s e to an evi cti on acti on but i s not accurate i n determi nati on or s upport i s

i neffecti ve

Does not determi ne what defens es Sam mi ght rai s e to an evi cti on acti on

6

Case Study Three: Business Entities

Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a and offers i ns i ght i nto the nuances of each i n rel ati on to one another

Correctl y i denti fi es the mai n types of bus i nes s enti ti es and di s cus ses the advantages and

di s advantages of each

Identi fi es the mai n types of bus i nes s enti ti es , but i denti fi cati on i s not correct, or

does not di s cus s the advantages and di s advantages of each, or di s cus ses the advantages or di s advantages of each (but not

both)

Does not i denti fy the mai n types of bus i nes s enti ti es

6

Case Study Three: Specific Business

Entity

Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a and i ncl udes s peci fic, wel l -s upported reas oni ng for bus i nes s enti ty choi ce

Recommends a s peci fi c bus iness enti ty for Arcadi a Sports and i ncl udes a l ogi cal reas oning

Recommends a s peci fi c bus iness enti ty for Arcadi a Sports , but reas oni ng i s i l logical or mi s s ing

Does not recommend a s peci fi c bus i nes s enti ty for Arcadi a Sports

6

Case Study Three:

Damages

Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a and

offers nuanced i ns i ght as to why they are l i able under that s peci fi c bus i nes s enti ty

Accuratel y determi nes the type

of bus i nes s enti ty under whi ch Jeb and Jos h woul d be pers onal l y l iable to Jane for damages

Determi nes the type of bus i nes s

enti ty under whi ch Jeb and Jos h woul d be pers onal l y l iable to Jane for damages , but i s not accurate i n determi nati on

Does not determi ne the type of

bus i nes s enti ty under whi ch Jeb and Jos h woul d be pers onal l y l i abl e to Jane for damages

6

Case Study Three:

Seize the Assets

Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a and

ci tes s chol arly res earch to s upport anal ys is

Correctl y anal yzes the abi l ity of

Jeb’s pers onal credi tors to s ei ze the as s ets and/or profi ts of Arcadi a Sports

Anal yzes the abi l i ty of Jeb’s

pers onal credi tors to s ei ze the as s ets and/or profi ts of Arcadi a Sports , but anal ys is i s i ncorrect or l acks detai l

Does not anal yze the abi l i ty of

Jeb’s pers onal credi tors to s ei ze the as s ets and/or profi ts of Arcadi a Sports

6

Articulation of Response

Submi s s i on i s free of errors rel ated to ci tati ons , grammar,

s pel l i ng, s yntax, and organi zati on and i s pres ented i n a profes s i onal and eas y to read format

Submi s s i on has no major errors rel ated to ci tati ons , grammar,

s pel l i ng, s yntax, or organi zati on

Submi s s i on has major errors rel ated to ci tati ons , grammar,

s pel l i ng, s yntax, or organi zati on that negati vel y i mpact readabi l ity and arti culation of mai n i deas

Submi s s i on has criti cal errors rel ated to ci tati ons , grammar,

s pel l i ng, s yntax, or organi zati on that prevent unders tandi ng of i deas

4

Total 100%