Business Law

BUS 206 Milestone One 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 regulat ions. Recognizing and evaluating legal issues is a fundamental skill that will help you navigate commercial relationships and avoid potential problems in the business worl d. Prompt: Imagine yourself as a paralegal working in a law office that has been ta sked 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 e ach of the three report s, you will focus on areas of law covered in this course. Case Study One focus es on the legal system , criminal law , and ethics . 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 intern et. 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 we ll 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 turn s 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 d iscoloration. 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 state s that all disputes must be brought in the state of Florida. Specifically, the foll owing 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, s tate 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 hel d 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 cr iminal 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. Rubric Guidelines for Submission: Your submission should be a one - to two -page Word document with double spacing, 12 -point Times New Roman font, and one -inch margins. Citations should be formatted according to APA style . 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 a nd ci tes s chol a rly res ea rch to s upport cl a i ms Correctl y a ppl i es the rul es of j uri s diction to the fa cts of thi s ca s e a nd determi nes wha t j uri s diction(s ) woul d be a ppropri a te for Ma rgol i n’s l a ws ui t a ga inst Funny Fa ce a nd Novel ty Now Appl i es the rul es of j uri s dicti on a nd determi nes wha t j uri s diction(s ) w oul d be a ppropri a te for Ma rgol i n’s l a ws ui t a ga inst Funny Fa ce a nd Novel ty Now, but determi na ti on of j uri s diction i s i ncorrect for thi s ca s e Does not a p pl y the rul es of j uri s diction or determi ne wha t j uri s diction(s ) woul d be a ppropri a te for Ma rgol i n’s l a ws u it 13 Case Study One : Alternative Dispute Resolution Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a a nd offers i ns i ght, ba s ed on s chol arly res ea rch, a s to why the chos en types of ADR woul d be a ppropri a te choi ces i n thi s s i tua ti on Ana l yzes the a dva nta ges a nd di s a dva ntages of two types of ADR a nd defi nes the cha ra cteri sti cs of ea ch Ana l yzes the a dva nta ges a nd di s a dva ntages of two types of ADR, but a na l ys is i s cursory or does not defi ne the cha ra cteri sti cs of ea ch Does not a na l yze the a dva nta ges a nd di s a dva nta ges of two types of ADR 13 Case Study One : ADR Preference Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a a nd offers concrete exa mpl es to s ubs ta nti a te a nd comprehens i vel y des cri be why the chos en types of ADR woul d be preferred by the res pecti ve pa rti es Appl i es knowl edge of ADR a nd di s cus ses whi ch types of ADR ea ch pa rty (Funny Fa ce, Novel ty Now, a nd Ma rgol i n) mi ght prefer a nd l ogi ca l ly defends choi ces Appl i es knowl edge of ADR a nd di s cus ses whi ch types of ADR ea ch pa rty mi ght prefer, but di s cus sion i s cur sory a nd/or does not di s cus s rea s ons for preferences , or defens e i s i l l ogi cal Does not a ppl y knowl edge of ADR or di s cus s whi ch types of ADR ea ch pa rty mi ght prefer 13 Case Study One : Criminal Acts Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a a nd ci tes s peci fi c, a ppl icable rul es of l a w Appl i es concepts of cri mi na l l aw a nd di s cus s es whether or not corpora ti ons a nd/or corpora te offi cers ma y be hel d l i a bl e for cri mi na l a cts Appl i es concepts of cri mi na l l aw a nd di s cus s e s whether or not corpora ti ons a nd/or corpora te offi cers ma y be hel d l i a bl e for cri mi na l a cts, but di s cus si on i s curs ory or l a cks deta i l Does not a ppl y concepts of cri mi na l l aw or di s cuss whether or not corpora ti ons a nd/or corpora te offi cers ma y be hel d l i a bl e for cri mi nal a cts 13 Case Study One : Potential Criminal Acts Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a , a nd i dea s a re wel l s upported wi th a nnota ti ons from the text Correctl y i denti fi es , p er the cl a s s ifica tion of cri mes i n the text, a ny potenti a l cri mi na l a cts by Funny Fa ce a nd/or Novel ty Now I denti fi es a ny potenti a l cri mi na l a cts by Funny Fa ce a nd/or Novel ty Now, but cri mi na l a cts i denti fi ed a re i ncorrect for thi s ca s e Does not i denti fy a n y potenti a l cri mi na l a cts by Funny Fa ce a nd/or Novel ty Now 13 Case Study One : Potential Criminal Liability Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a a nd ci tes s chol a rly res ea rch to s upport a na l ys is Appl i es concepts of cri mi na l l aw a nd di s cus s es the potenti a l cri mi na l l iability of Funny Fa ce, Chri s , Ma tt, I a n, a nd Novel ty Now a nd i ncl udes s upport for the concl us i on Appl i es concepts of cri mi na l l aw a nd di s cus s es the potenti a l cri mi na l l iability of Funn y Fa ce, Chri s , Ma tt, I a n, a nd Novel ty Now but does not i ncl ude s upport for the concl us i on , or s upport i s wea k Does not a ppl y concepts of cri mi na l l aw or di s cuss the potenti a l cri mi na l l i ability of Funny Fa ce, Chri s , Ma tt, I a n, a nd Novel ty Now 13 Case Stud y One: Ethical Decision - Making Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a a nd offers i ns i ght i nto the rel a ti ons hip between ethi cs a nd l a w Accura tel y a ppl i es a t l ea s t three gui del i nes of ethi ca l deci s i on - ma ki ng to eva l ua te ethi ca l i s s ues wi thi n the context of the ca s e s tudy Appl i es a t l ea s t three gui del i nes of ethi ca l deci s i on -ma king to eva l ua te ethi ca l i s s ues wi thi n the context of the ca s e s tudy, but a ppl i cation of gui del i nes ha s ga ps i n a ccura cy or l ogi c Does not a ppl y a t l ea s t three gui del i nes of ethi ca l deci s i on - ma k i ng to eva l ua te ethi ca l i s s ues wi thi n the context of the ca s e s tudy 13 Articulation of Response Submi s s i on i s free of errors rel a ted to ci ta ti ons , gra mma r, s pel l i ng, s ynta x, a nd orga ni za ti on a nd i s pres ented i n a profes s i ona l a nd ea s y to rea d forma t Submi s s i on ha s no ma j or errors rel a ted to ci ta ti ons , gra mma r, s pel l i ng, s ynta x, or orga ni zati on Submi s s i on ha s ma j or errors rel a ted to ci ta ti ons , gra mma r, s pel l i ng, s ynta x, or orga ni zati on tha t nega ti vel y i mpa ct rea da bi l ity a nd a rti cula tion of ma i n i dea s Submi s s i on ha s criti ca l errors rel a ted to ci ta ti ons , gra mma r, s pel l i ng, s ynta x, or orga ni zati on tha t prevent unders ta ndi ng of i dea s 9 Total 100%