Case Study One Assignment
Case study for
BUS-206-Q1234 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, 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.
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 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.
Rubric
Guidelines for Submission: Your submission should be a three- to six-page Word document with double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, and one-inch
margins. Citations should be formatted according to APA style.
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
13
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
13
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
13
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
13
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
13
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
13
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
13
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
9
Total 100%