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 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 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 “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 i l logical
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 cri
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 l iability 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 l iability 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 l iability 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 org