I need help with my BUS LAW 206 final project.  Can anyone help?

BUS 20

6

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%

• BUS 206 Final Project Guidelines and Rubric

Overview
Prompt
Case Study One
Case Study Two
Case Study Three
Milestones
Milestone One: Case Study One
Milestone Two: Case Study Two
Milestone Three: Case Study Three Discussion
Final Project Submission: Case Study Analyses
Final Project Rubric

Accessibility Report

Filename:
BUS 206 Final Project Guidelines and Rubric

Report created by:

Organization:

[Enter personal and organization information through the Preferences > Identity dialog.]

Summary

The checker found no problems in this document.

• Needs manual check

  : 2

• Passed

  manually: 0

• Failed manually: 0
• Skipped

  : 1

• Passed: 29
• Failed: 0

Detailed Report

Rule Name Status Description

Passed

Passed

Passed

Needs manual check

Passed

Passed

Passed

Needs manual check

Rule Name Status Description

Passed

Passed

Passed

Passed

Passed

Passed

Passed

Passed

Passed

Rule Name Status Description

Passed

Passed

Rule Name Status Description

Passed

Passed

Passed

Passed

Passed

Rule Name Status Description

Passed

Passed

Passed

Passed

Skipped

Rule Name Status Description

Passed

Passed

Rule Name Status Description

Passed Appropriate nesting

Document
Accessibility permission flag	Accessibility permission flag must be set
Image-only PDF	Document is not image-only PDF
Tagged PDF	Document is tagged PDF
Logical Reading Order	Document structure provides a logical reading order
Primary language	Text language is specified
Title	Document title is showing in title bar
Bookmarks	Bookmarks are present in large documents
Color contrast	Document has appropriate color contrast
Page Content
Tagged content	All page content is tagged
Tagged annotations	All annotations are tagged
Tab order	Tab order is consistent with structure order
Character encoding	Reliable character encoding is provided
Tagged multimedia	All multimedia objects are tagged
Screen flicker	Page will not cause screen flicker
Scripts	No inaccessible scripts
Timed responses	Page does not require timed responses
Navigation links	Navigation links are not repetitive
Forms
Tagged form fields	All form fields are tagged
Field descriptions	All form fields have description
Alternate Text
Figures alternate text	Figures require alternate text
Nested alternate text	Alternate text that will never be read
Associated with content	Alternate text must be associated with some content
Hides annotation	Alternate text should not hide annotation
Other elements alternate text	Other elements that require alternate text
Tables
Rows	TR must be a child of Table, THead, TBody, or TFoot
TH and TD	TH and TD must be children of TR
Headers	Tables should have headers
Regularity	Tables must contain the same number of columns in each row and rows in each column
Summary	Tables must have a summary
Lists
List items	LI must be a child of L
Lbl and LBody	Lbl and LBody must be children of LI
Headings
	Appropriate nesting

Back to Top

MOORE 2

MARGOLIN V. FUNNY FACE & NOVELTY INC.

Case Study One:

A Study of Margolin V. Funny Face & Novelty Inc.

Jennifer Moore

Southern New Hampshire University

Business 206: Business Law I

Case Study One: Margolin V. Funny Face & Novelty Inc.

In the case of Donald Margolin versus Funny Face and Novelty Inc., Margolin is suing for damages after his face became discolored permanently after using an aftershave that was created by Chris, Matt, and Ian through the company Novelty Now Inc. Mr. Margolin filed a suit in New York against the creators of the product as well as the manufacturing company. Even though a contract existed barring suit be brought against the creators, and any suits be filled in the state of Florida, the authenticity of the case was questioned.

To determine the appropriate court, several factors must be taken into consideration. Three key factors to consider are personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, and minimum contacts. Personal jurisdiction refers to the court’s ability to “render a decision affecting the rights of the specific persons before the court” (Kubasek, 2012). Since Mr. Margolin resides in the state of New York, there is adequate evidence to hold up that the state of New York has jurisdiction over Mr. Margolin. “Subject-matter jurisdiction is a court’s power to hear certain kinds of cases” (Kubasek, 2012). This determines which courts, state or federal, can hear specific types of cases or those relating to a specific subject matter. The case at hand does not associate a claim that would disobey exclusive federal jurisdiction but could fall under concurrent federal jurisdiction. Concurrent federal jurisdiction hears cases that are federal-question and those that are diversity of citizenship cases. Two conditions must be met for diversity of citizenship: (1) the plaintiff and defendant do not reside in the same state, and (2) the claim concerns monies more than $75,000 (Freer, 1998). What Mr. Margolin is seeking in damages will depend on the possibility of concurrent federal jurisdiction. Since the case is still filed in New York, but Novelty Inc. has the right to transfer the case to the federal court system. Minimum contacts must also be addressed. A minimum contact is a term used to determine whether a court in one state can declare personal jurisdiction over a defendant (Gordon, 2020). If a company is based in another state, a lawsuit can be brought in a different state if the company is “regularly soliciting business in that state, deriving substantial revenue from goods or services sold in that state, or engaging in some other persistent and continuous course of business conduct in the state are all examples of activities that would establish minimum contacts with that state” (Nicolosi, 2014). The creators of Funny Face were marketing on the radio and in newspapers, as well as on the web and Facebook, and have satisfied the minimum contacts requirements. In this case it would be appropriate to file a case in New York or pursue the transfer to a federal court at the defendant’s request.

If both parties agree the dispute can be cleared up through alternative dispute resolution (ADR). ADR refers to “any means of settling disputes outside of the courtroom” that does not involve litigation (Carson, 2018). Using ADR is a way to keep the cases confidential while also trying to maintain friendly terms to continue doing business. Some ways to do this are by using negotiation, mediation, or arbitration. If both parties can agree, using a method of ADR, it can save time and money. Taking this case into consideration and considering these two parties are in different states, it would be beneficial for these parties to have a shortened timeline for the case.

Mediation or arbitration would be the best ADR. These would allow the rules of jurisdiction which would allow him to try and move the ADR to a closer location. In return arbitration would allow all parties more control over the process but keeping formal litigation. Mediation will also allow Mr. Margolin an opportunity to voice his concerns with both defendants and possibly reach a resolution. At this time if an agreement is not met, they can then try to pursue arbitration or litigation. There are some disadvantages of ADR. If agreed upon, both defendants will continue to do business as normal and the public may never learn of the case. Choosing mediation would possibly lead into the defendants harassing Mr. Margolin into reaching an agreement that may not have all benefits he deserves. If Mr. Margolin does not agree with the award of the arbitrator, it would be more difficult for him to have a decision overturned. Also, no jury is present and having a jury can sometime be an important right not easily to give up. Arbitration does away with juries, and this leaves everything in the hands of the arbitrator.

The defendants, Chris, Matt, and Ian could be subject to corporate criminal liability. Fraud is the primary crime that exists in this case. To define fraud there are three classifications “(1) a materially false representation made with intent to deceive, (2) a victim’s reasonable reliance on the false representation, and (3) damages (Kubasek, 2012). Chris, a creator for Funny Face, requested the change to add PYR to the formula because the first formula did not have PYR in it. This was requested prior to Novelty Now Inc. manufacturing the product. As they failed to disclose the use of an ingredient without FDA approval, this is considered “fraudulent concealment.” When Funny Face did not include the possibility of permanent skin discoloration in their marketing, so therefore Mr. Margolin figured there where no side effects to using the product. After looing his reputation and his face turned a color of blue, these are considered damages made by the product. Novelty Now Inc. should have been more responsible by making sure the company was producing a safe product, and by failing to do so, they should be held accountable for the damages done to Mr. Margolin just as much as Funny Face. Charging Funny Face and Novelty Now Inc. with conspiracy is also possible. In the case of the US v. Karauzum, a business owner, was sentenced to five years prison for manufacturing, marketing, and distributing for human consumption, Potion 9, a product containing butanediol, and industrial solvent that rapidly metabolizes into GHB – commonly referred to as “club drug” or date rape drug” (US Dept of Justice, 2015). These two cases seem to have some same actions of the creators of Funny Face.

Three key elements for the ethical process of decision making under the WPH framework are (1) first consideration is, “Whom would this decision affect” (Kubasek, 2012). In this case the decision made by Chris to add PYR affected consumers. Consumers deserve the right to know each ingredient in the products they are purchasing. (2) An ultimate purpose of the decision evaluated and what is being valued. By Funny face adding PYR, they were only thinking of the shot term gain and not for the consumers. (3) Ethical decision making comes into place. Funny Face should have considered how the consumers would view their actions. Since the product was not safe it would have with held profits coming in from the sale of the product.

In conclusion, this case has several different options. Litigation seems to be the direction this case needs to go. There are crimes that need to be investigated and Mr. Margolin, needs to think about that before he thinks about the advantages offered by ADR.

References

Carson, Hart. 2018. What Does ADR Mean? Retrieved from

https://www.hartdavidcarson.com/

Freer, Richard D. 1998. “Toward a Principled Statutory Approach to Supplemental Jurisdiction in Diversity of Citizenship Cases.” Indiana Law Journal 74 (winter): 5–23.

Gordon, Jason. (2020). Personal Jurisdiction: Minimum Contacts Standard. Retrieved from

Personal Jurisdiction: Minimum Contacts Standard – The Business Professor, LLC

Kubasek, Nancy. (2012). Dynamic Business Law, 2nd Edition. [VitalSource Bookshelf Online]. Retrieved from

https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259193470/

Nicolosi, Phil. (2014). Where Internet Jurisdiction Can Get Your Business Sued! Retrieved from:

Where Internet Jurisdiction Can Get Your Business Sued!

The United States Department of Justice. 2015. Businessman Sentenced to Five Years in Federal Prison for Conspiracy to Misbrand a Product for Human Consumption, Money Laundering. Retrieved from

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/businessman-sentenced-five-years-federal-prison-conspiracy-misbrand-product-human-consumpti-0

Moore 2

BUS 206

Milestone Two

Jennifer Moore

Southern New Hampshire University

Milestone Two

A contract is made up of four elements. The agreement, the consideration, contractual capacity, and a legal object is what makes up a contract. The offeror, the agreement that includes an offer by Sam, means to enter a contract and an acceptance of terms of the offer by the other party, chain store manager, called the offeree (Kubasek, 2012). Sam verbally told the store manager several months ago that he would ship 1,000 units of a barking dog noise maker. This element does count towards a contract because Sam agreed to ship the 1,000 units. Following up next is the consideration, which would exist if the chain store manager agreed on what to give Sam in exchange for the 1,000 units. There would be no valid contract because part of the exchange was not mentioned. A contractual capacity is the legal ability to enter into a binding agreement and that the parties can understand that a contract is being formed. The speculation that Sam is of age, so therefore a contractual capacity element is valid. In the end, is the element of a legal object. Since the chain store manager has implied that they are wanting to sell Sam’s product entirely suggested an agreement. If all the elements were present to imply a contract, there still can be reasons as to why a contract might not be sustainable. If Sam was under the age of 18, could imply a voidable contract. Minors are not considered to have legal capacity as they are unable to comprehend the outcome of a contract. Also, a contract would not be valid is that it lacks proper form, which means it lacks a writing (Kubasek, 2012).

A quasi-contract could be established, even though there may not be a valid legal contract with Sam and the chain store manager. Quasi-contract is an obligation imposed by law to prevent unjust enrichment. A quasi-contract is also known as an implied-in-law contract, but they are not true contracts. To prevent one party from being wrongly embellished at the expense of another, the courts impose contractual obligations on one of the parties as if that party had entered into a contract (Kubasek, 2012). The benefits that each party receives, is what needs to be determined. The store manager will be able to profit from the sale of the 1,000 units of Sam’s product. Unfortunately, there is no mention of what Same would receive in return. There is a possibility that Sam received payment for the products in advance and just had not delivered the products yet. To complete the exchange, the courts could obligate Sam to send the 1,000 units to the store manager.

The legal opinion that a promise is contractual by law when the promisor (the person making the promise) makes a promise to the promisee (the person being promised) who counts on it to his or her liability is a promissory estoppel. There are three conditions the chain store manager may succeed under the promissory estoppel. Initially, one party makes a promise knowing the other will rely on it (Kubasek, 2012). Sam promised 1,000 units to the manager and the manager accepted the business when he stated that he wanted to sell the product entirely in his store. Next, the other party relies on the promise. The store manager sends a letter to Sam requesting his products immediately that were promised to him. The store manager relied on the promise and the only way to avoid an injustice is to enforce the promise; this last condition must be met (Kubasek, 2012).

Both the landlord and tenant have rights and obligations in terms of their contract. The landlord’s rights and obligations are to put the tenant in possession of the apartment, provide a covenant of quiet enjoyment of the apartment, and be reimbursed for the tenant’s waste (Kubasek, 2012). Sam’s eviction notice was because he is violation the covenant of quiet enjoyment for the other tenants with his dog barking invention, and because he has an operating business from his apartment. Sam told the landlord that he was working on an invention, so therefore Sam can argue that he has not violated the contract. The landlord himself wished Sam luck with his project. It does not seem like a restriction to me it sounds like the landlord giving him encouragement. The landlord should have spoken up at the time to Sam was not violating by running a business from his apartment. Now, for Sam’s noise that is disturbing the other tenants, violating the covenant of quiet enjoyment, is grounds for eviction.

Sam’s argument against the eviction would be he verbally expressed to the landlord his intent to build an invention and it may not be stated in their contract whether the agreement prohibits Sam from working on his invention in the apartment. Once Sam verbally expressed his intentions, the landlord should have mentioned wrongdoing and addressed the concern at that time. Sam may use his apartment the way he chooses, if he is not disrupting any other tenants. Sam did create disruptions with his invention; however, the landlord did wish him luck. The communication of a verbal agreement permitted and encouraged Sam’s actions. Unless it was stipulated in the lease it can not be considered a violation. Therefore, there is not enough evidence stated to determine how much of Sam’s actions caused disruption, and what extent.

References

Kubasek, N.K. (2012). Dynamic business law. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

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.

Hi Class-

 

           There are many types of business entities, but there are a few main ones.  These are sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, and limited liability companies.

Sole Proprietorship is where once person controls the management and profits (Kubasek, 2015). 

Advantages

· Creation of organization is easy

· Sole Proprietor has complete control of management (hiring, expanding business, etc.)

· Sole Proprietor keeps all profits from the business

· Sole Proprietor can terminate the business at their own will

Disadvantages

· Sole Proprietor is responsible for any losses or obligations associated with the business

· Accrue to much debt and not overcome

· Funding is quite a struggle due to large startup costs

Partnership is where the partners equally divide the profits and management responsibilities as well as share unlimited liability for the business’s debt (Kubasek, 2015).  Also, with a partnership, the partners are not usually required to create an agreement to establish the partnership (Kubasek, 2015). 

Advantages

· Creation of organization is easy

· More resources with two or more people to make decisions and support the business

· Income from business is taxed as individual income for each partner

Disadvantages

· Partners are personally liable for the business’s debts

· The division of authority in decision making

Corporation are a legal entity which is formed by selling shares of stock to investor, or otherwise known as shareholders (Kubasek, 2015).

Advantages

· Shareholders have limited liability

· Profits are taxed as income to the shareholders (not the partners)

· Easy to raise capital by issuing stock

· Protected from being personally liable for the business debts

· Shares can be passed onto family members making a corporation a life business

Disadvantages

· Corporate income is taxed twice

· Formalities are mandatory in establishing and keeping corporate form

· Separate legal entity that can be sued

· Corporations can only operate in the state it was created, unless permission is given by other states

· Cost to establish a corporation already being high, huge hurdle in expanding the business

Limited Liability Company (LLC) is an unincorporated form of business organization.  Most people see this type of business entity as combining the advantages of partnership (management flexibility) with the advantages of corporations (limited liability) (Kubasek, 2015). 

Advantages

· IRS treats it like a partnership or sole proprietorship

· LLC report their share of profits and losses on their personal tax returns, avoiding double taxation

· Members do not have to be citizens or permanent residents of the US

Disadvantages

· Qualification process seems to be a downfall

· If LLC wants to do business in more states, they must register with each individual state

Jeb and Josh have been friends for a very long time.  They both decided to open a sporting goods store, Arcadia Sports.  They will be utilizing Josh’s understanding of sporting goods and Jeb’s wealthiest.  The store will also offer whitewater rafting, camping excursions, and rock climbing.  As Jeb will not engage in the operations or any store excursions, they have both agreed to split profits down the middle. 

            Jane, a customer, on the first white water rafting trip fell off the raft and has permanent damage to her spine.  She also suffered a severe concussion.  Meanwhile Jeb’s source of income, wind farms, were shut down by government regulators, and Jeb goes bankrupt.  This leaves personal creditors looking to collect.  Since Jeb has gone bankrupt the personal creditors are looking to seize assets of Arcadia Sports.   If he were sole proprietor, it would be very easy for the creditors to seize his assets.  Being a general partner still holds you personally liable for losses and debts which means when Jeb went bankrupt the creditors can seize his assets.  If Jeb had created an LLC or a corporation, he would have had a much more protection of his personal assets from the personal creditors. 

 

References:

 Kubasek, N. (2015). Dynamic business law. Boston: McGraw Hill Learning Solutions.