BUS 206 Final Project Guidelines and Rubric

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:

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 conclusion.

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 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:

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 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:

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 topic 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 three to six 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.

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

Case Study One:

Rules of Jurisdiction

Meets “Proficient” criteria and

cites scholarly research to

support claims

Correctly applies the rules of

jurisdiction to the facts of this

case and determines what

jurisdiction(s) would be

appropriate for Margolin’s

lawsuit against Funny Face and

Novelty Now

Applies the rules of jurisdiction

and determines what

jurisdiction(s) would be

appropriate for Margolin’s

lawsuit against Funny Face and

Novelty Now, but determination

of jurisdiction is incorrect for

this case

Does not apply the rules of

jurisdiction or determine what

jurisdiction(s) would be

appropriate for Margolin’s

lawsuit

6

Case Study One:

Alternative Dispute

Resolution

Meets “Proficient” criteria and

offers insight, based on scholarly

research, as to why the chosen

types of ADR would be

appropriate choices in this

situation

Analyzes the advantages and

disadvantages of two types of

ADR and defines the

characteristics of each

Analyzes the advantages and

disadvantages of two types of

ADR, but analysis is cursory or

does not define the

characteristics of each

Does not analyze the advantages

and disadvantages of two types

of ADR

6

Case Study One:

ADR Preference

Meets “Proficient” criteria and

offers concrete examples to

substantiate and

comprehensively describe why

the chosen types of ADR would

be preferred by the respective

parties

Applies knowledge of ADR and

discusses which types of ADR

each party (Funny Face, Novelty

Now, and Margolin) might prefer

and logically defends choices

Applies knowledge of ADR and

discusses which types of ADR

each party might prefer, but

discussion is cursory and/or

does not discuss reasons for

preferences, or defense is

illogical

Does not apply knowledge of

ADR or discuss which types of

ADR each party might prefer

6

Case Study One:

Criminal Acts

Meets “Proficient” criteria and

cites specific, applicable rules of

law

Applies concepts of criminal law

and discusses whether or not

corporations and/or corporate

officers may be held liable for

criminal acts

Applies concepts of criminal law

and discusses whether or not

corporations and/or corporate

officers may be held liable for

criminal acts, but discussion is

cursory or lacks detail

Does not apply concepts of

criminal law or discuss whether

or not corporations and/or

corporate officers may be held

liable for criminal acts

6

Case Study One:

Potential Criminal

Acts

Meets “Proficient” criteria, and

ideas are well supported with

annotations from the text

Correctly identifies, per the

classification of crimes in the

text, any potential criminal acts

by Funny Face and/or Novelty

Now

Identifies any potential criminal

acts by Funny Face and/or

Novelty Now, but criminal acts

identified are incorrect for this

case

Does not identify any potential

criminal acts by Funny Face

and/or Novelty Now

6

Case Study One:

Potential Criminal

Liability

Meets “Proficient” criteria and

cites scholarly research to

support analysis

Applies concepts of criminal law

and discusses the potential

criminal liability of Funny Face,

Chris, Matt, Ian, and Novelty

Now and includes support for

the conclusion

Applies concepts of criminal law

and discusses the potential

criminal liability of Funny Face,

Chris, Matt, Ian, and Novelty

Now but does not include

support for the conclusion, or

support is weak

Does not apply concepts of

criminal law or discuss the

potential criminal liability of

Funny Face, Chris, Matt, Ian, and

Novelty Now

6

Case Study One:

Ethical Decision-

Making

Meets “Proficient” criteria and

offers insight into the

relationship between ethics and

law

Accurately applies at least three

guidelines of ethical decision-

making to evaluate ethical issues

within the context of the case

study

Applies at least three guidelines

of ethical decision-making to

evaluate ethical issues within

the context of the case study,

but application of guidelines has

gaps in accuracy or logic

Does not apply at least three

guidelines of ethical decision-

making to evaluate ethical issues

within the context of the case

study

6

Case Study Two:

Valid Contract

Meets “Proficient” criteria, and

analysis is well qualified with

concrete examples and is well

supported and plausible

Analyzes the elements of the

case to determine whether a

valid contract exists between

Sam and the chain store and

supports response by identifying

the elements of a valid contract

Analyzes the elements of the

case to determine whether a

valid contract exists between

Sam and the chain store, but

analysis is incorrect or does not

support response by identifying

the elements of a valid contract

Does not analyze the elements

of the case to determine

whether a valid contract exists

between Sam and the chain

store

6

Case Study Two:

Quasi-Contract

Meets “Proficient” criteria and

cites scholarly research to

substantiate claims

Analyzes the elements of a

quasi-contract and a promissory

estoppel to determine whether

the chain store would prevail on

a claim of either, logically

explains why or why not, and

includes support for analysis

Analyzes the elements of a

quasi-contract and a promissory

estoppel to determine whether

the chain store would prevail on

a claim of either and explains

why or why not, but the

explanation is cursory and/or

illogical or does not include

support for analysis

Does not analyze the elements

of a quasi-contract and a

promissory estoppel to

determine whether the chain

store would prevail on a claim of

either

6

Case Study Two:

Rights and

Obligations

Meets “Proficient” criteria and is

accurate in effectively discussing

nuanced rights and obligations

in the relationship between the

landlord and tenant

Correctly determines the rights

and obligations of both the

landlord and tenant under a

standard residential lease

agreement

Determines the rights and

obligations of the landlord or

the tenant under a standard

residential lease agreement (but

not both) or is incorrect in which

rights and obligations apply

Does not determine the rights

and obligations of both the

landlord and tenant under a

standard residential lease

agreement

6

Case Study Two:

Grounds to Evict

Meets “Proficient” criteria and

provides a thorough, step-by-

step analysis with specific

supporting evidence applied to

each element of the relevant

legal test

Correctly determines whether

Sam’s landlord has grounds to

evict based upon the previously

stated rights and obligations

Determines whether Sam’s

landlord has grounds to evict

but does not base

determination on the previously

stated rights and obligations or

is incorrect in determination

Does not determine whether

Sam’s landlord has grounds to

evict

6

Case Study Two:

Defenses

Meets “Proficient” criteria and

cites scholarly research to

substantiate determination

Accurately determines what

defenses Sam might raise to an

eviction action and effectively

supports the response

Determines what defenses Sam

might raise to an eviction action

but is not accurate in

determination or support is

ineffective

Does not determine what

defenses Sam might raise to an

eviction action

6

Case Study Three:

Business Entities

Meets “Proficient” criteria and

offers insight into the nuances of

each in relation to one another

Correctly identifies the main

types of business entities and

discusses the advantages and

disadvantages of each

Identifies the main types of

business entities, but

identification is not correct, or

does not discuss the advantages

and disadvantages of each, or

discusses the advantages or

disadvantages of each (but not

both)

Does not identify the main types

of business entities

6

Case Study Three:

Specific Business

Entity

Meets “Proficient” criteria and

includes specific, well-supported

reasoning for business entity

choice

Recommends a specific business

entity for Arcadia Sports and

includes a logical reasoning

Recommends a specific business

entity for Arcadia Sports, but

reasoning is illogical or missing

Does not recommend a specific

business entity for Arcadia

Sports

6

Case Study Three:

Damages

Meets “Proficient” criteria and

offers nuanced insight as to why

they are liable under that

specific business entity

Accurately determines the type

of business entity under which

Jeb and Josh would be

personally liable to Jane for

damages

Determines the type of business

entity under which Jeb and Josh

would be personally liable to

Jane for damages, but is not

accurate in determination

Does not determine the type of

business entity under which Jeb

and Josh would be personally

liable to Jane for damages

6

Case Study Three:

Seize the Assets

Meets “Proficient” criteria and

cites scholarly research to

support analysis

Correctly analyzes the ability of

Jeb’s personal creditors to seize

the assets and/or profits of

Arcadia Sports

Analyzes the ability of Jeb’s

personal creditors to seize the

assets and/or profits of Arcadia

Sports, but analysis is incorrect

or lacks detail

Does not analyze the ability of

Jeb’s personal creditors to seize

the assets and/or profits of

Arcadia Sports

6

Articulation of

Response

Submission is free of errors

related to citations, grammar,

spelling, syntax, and

organization and is presented in

a professional and easy to read

format

Submission has no major errors

related to citations, grammar,

spelling, syntax, or organization

Submission has major errors

related to citations, grammar,

spelling, syntax, or organization

that negatively impact

readability and articulation of

main ideas

Submission has critical errors

related to citations, grammar,

spelling, syntax, or organization

that prevent understanding of

ideas

4

Total 100%