BUS 206 Final Project Guidelines and Rubric Overview Business law impacts our ev

BUS 206 Final Project Guidelines and Rubric Overview Business law impacts our everyday lives, both personally and professionally. Businesses enter contracts, manufacture goods, sell 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 situations · 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 studies 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 directs 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: 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. 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. Applying what you have learned about ADR, which type would each party (Funny Face, Novelty Now, and Margolin) prefer and why? Apply concepts of criminal law and discuss whether or not corporations and/or corporate officers may be held liable for criminal acts. Identify, per the classification of crimes in the text, any potential criminal acts by Funny Face and/or Novelty Now. 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 liabilityof Funny Face, Chris, Matt, Ian, and Novelty Now. Include support for your conclusion. Use the WPH process of ethical decision making to evaluate any 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 new 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: 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. 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. Identify the rights and obligations of both the landlord and tenant under a standard residential lease agreement. Based upon those rights and obligations, does Sam’s landlord have grounds to evict? Why or why not? 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 rafting 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: Identify the main types of business entities and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each. Recommend a specific business entity for Arcadia Sports and include your reasoning. 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. 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 improving 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 NewRoman 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 information,review these instructions. Critical Elements Exemplary (100%) Proficient (85%) Needs Improvement (55%) Not Evident (0%) Value Case Study One: Meets “Proficient” criteria and Correctly applies the rules of Applies the rules of jurisdiction Does not apply the rules of 6 Rules of Jurisdiction cites scholarly research to jurisdiction to the facts of this and determines what jurisdiction or determine what support claims case and determines what jurisdiction(s) would be jurisdiction(s) would be jurisdiction(s) would be appropriate for Margolin’s appropriate for Margolin’s appropriate for Margolin’s lawsuit against Funny Face and lawsuit lawsuit against Funny Face and Novelty Now, but determination Novelty Now of jurisdiction is incorrect for this case Case Study One: Meets “Proficient” criteria and Analyzes the advantages and Analyzes the advantages and Does not analyze the advantages 6 Alternative Dispute offers insight, based on scholarly disadvantages of two types of disadvantages of two types of and disadvantages of two types Resolution research, as to why the chosen ADR and defines the ADR, but analysis is cursory or of ADR types of ADR would be characteristics of each does not define the appropriate choices in this characteristics of each situation Case Study One: Meets “Proficient” criteria and Applies knowledge of ADR and Applies knowledge of ADR and Does not apply knowledge of 6 ADR Preference offers concrete examples to discusses which types of ADR discusses which types of ADR ADR or discuss which types of substantiate and each party (Funny Face, Novelty each party might prefer, but ADR each party might prefer comprehensively describe why Now, and Margolin) might prefer discussion is cursory and/or the chosen types of ADR would and logically defends choices does not discuss reasons for be preferred by the respective preferences, or defense is parties illogical Case Study One: Meets “Proficient” criteria and Applies concepts of criminal law Applies concepts of criminal law Does not apply concepts of 6 Criminal Acts cites specific, applicable rules of and discusses whether or not and discusses whether or not criminal law or discuss whether law corporations and/or corporate corporations and/or corporate or not corporations and/or officers may be held liable for officers may be held liable for corporate officers may be held criminal acts criminal acts, but discussion is liable for criminal acts cursory or lacks detail Case Study One: Meets “Proficient” criteria, and Correctly identifies, per the Identifies any potential criminal Does not identify any potential 6 Potential Criminal ideas are well supported with classification of crimes in the acts by Funny Face and/or criminal acts by Funny Face Acts annotations from the text text, any potential criminal acts Novelty Now, but criminal acts and/or Novelty Now by Funny Face and/or Novelty identified are incorrect for this Now case Case Study One: Meets “Proficient” criteria and Applies concepts of criminal law Applies concepts of criminal law Does not apply concepts of 6 Potential Criminal cites scholarly research to and discusses the potential and discusses the potential criminal law or discuss the Liability support analysis criminal liability of Funny Face, criminal liability of Funny Face, potential criminal liability of Chris, Matt, Ian, and Novelty Chris, Matt, Ian, and Novelty Funny Face, Chris, Matt, Ian, and Now and includes support for Now but does not include Novelty Now the conclusion support for the conclusion, or support is weak Case Study One: Meets “Proficient” criteria and Accurately applies the WPH Applies the WPH process of Does not apply the WPH process 6 WPH Process offers insight into the process of ethical decision decision making and evaluates of ethical decision making to relationship between ethics and making and evaluates any any ethical issues within the evaluate any ethical issues law ethical issues within the context context of the case study, but within the context of the case of the case study application of WPH process is study inaccurate Case Study Two: Meets “Proficient” criteria, and Analyzes the elements of the Analyzes the elements of the Does not analyze the elements 6 Valid Contract analysis is well qualified with case to determine whether a case to determine whether a of the case to determine concrete examples and is well valid contract exists between valid contract exists between whether a valid contract exists supported and plausible Sam and the chain store and Sam and the chain store, but between Sam and the chain supports response by identifying analysis is incorrect or does not store the elements of a valid contract support response by identifying the elements of a valid contract Case Study Two: Meets “Proficient” criteria and Analyzes the elements of a Analyzes the elements of a Does not analyze the elements 6 Quasi-Contract cites scholarly research to quasi-contract and a promissory quasi-contract and a promissory of a quasi-contract and a substantiate claims estoppel to determine whether estoppel to determine whether promissory estoppel to the chain store would prevail on the chain store would prevail on determine whether the chain a claim of either, logically a claim of either and explains store would prevail on a claim of explains why or why not, and why or why not, but the either includes support for analysis explanation is cursory and/or illogical or does not include support for analysis Case Study Two: Meets “Proficient” criteria and is Correctly determines the rights Determines the rights and Does not determine the rights 6 Rights and accurate in effectively discussing and obligations of both the obligations of the landlord or and obligations of both the Obligations nuanced rights and obligations landlord and tenant under a the tenant under a standard landlord and tenant under a in the relationship between the standard residential lease residential lease agreement (but standard residential lease landlord and tenant agreement not both) or is incorrect in which agreement rights and obligations apply Case Study Two: Meets “Proficient” criteria and Correctly determines whether Determines whether Sam’s Does not determine whether 6 Grounds to Evict provides a thorough, step-by- Sam’s landlord has grounds to landlord has grounds to evict Sam’s landlord has grounds to step analysis with specific evict based upon the previously but does not base evict supporting evidence applied to stated rights and obligations determination on the previously each element of the relevant stated rights and obligations or legal test is incorrect in determination Case Study Two: Meets “Proficient” criteria and Accurately determines what Determines what defenses Sam Does not determine what 6 Defenses cites scholarly research to defenses Sam might raise to an might raise to an eviction action defenses Sam might raise to an substantiate determination eviction action and effectively but is not accurate in eviction action supports the response determination or support is ineffective Case Study Three: Meets “Proficient” criteria and Correctly identifies the main Identifies the main types of Does not identify the main types 6 Business Entities offers insight into the nuances of types of business entities and business entities, but of business entities each in relation to one another discusses the advantages and identification is not correct, or disadvantages of each does not discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each, or discusses the advantages or disadvantages of each (but not both) Case Study Three: Meets “Proficient” criteria and Recommends a specific business Recommends a specific business Does not recommend a specific 6 Specific Business includes specific, well-supported entity for Arcadia Sports and entity for Arcadia Sports, but business entity for Arcadia Entity reasoning for business entity includes a logical reasoning reasoning is illogical or missing Sports choice Case Study Three: Meets “Proficient” criteria and Accurately determines the type Determines the type of business Does not determine the type of 6 Damages offers nuanced insight as to why of business entity under which entity under which Jeb and Josh business entity under which Jeb they are liable under that Jeb and Josh would be would be personally liable to and Josh would be personally specific business entity personally liable to Jane for Jane for damages, but is not liable to Jane for damages damages accurate in determination Case Study Three: Meets “Proficient” criteria and Correctly analyzes the ability of Analyzes the ability of Jeb’s Does not analyze the ability of 6 Seize the Assets cites scholarly research to Jeb’s personal creditors to seize personal creditors to seize the Jeb’s personal creditors to seize support analysis the assets and/or profits of assets and/or profits of Arcadia the assets and/or profits of Arcadia Sports Sports, but analysis is incorrect Arcadia Sports or lacks detail Articulation of Submission is free of errors Submission has no major errors Submission has major errors Submission has critical errors 4 Response related to citations, grammar, related to citations, grammar, related to citations, grammar, related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, and spelling, syntax, or organization spelling, syntax, or organization spelling, syntax, or organization organization and is presented in that negatively impact that prevent understanding of a professional and easy to read readability and articulation of ideas format main ideas Earned Total 100%