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.

nnBUS 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 e ach 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:nnA. 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.nnB. 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.nnC. 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 criminalnnliability 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.nn

nnRubric 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.nnCritical Elements Exemplary (100%) Proficient (85%) Needs Improvement (55%) Not Evident (0%) ValuennCase Study One: Rules of JurisdictionnnMeets “Proficient” criteria and cites scholarly research tonnsupport claimsnnCorrectly applies the rules of jurisdiction to the facts of thisnncase and determines what jurisdiction(s) would be appropriate for Margolin’s lawsuit against Funny Face andnnNovelty NownnApplies the rules of jurisdiction and determines whatnnjurisdiction(s) would be appropriate for Margolin’s lawsuit against Funny Face and Novelty Now, but determinationnnof jurisdiction is incorrect for this casennDoes not apply the rules of jurisdiction or determine whatnnjurisdiction(s) would be appropriate for Margolin’s lawsuitnn13nnCase Study One: Alternative DisputennResolutionnnMeets “Proficient” criteria and offers insight, based on scholarly research, as to why the chosennntypes of ADR would be appropriate choices in this situationnnAnalyzes the advantages and disadvantages of two types of ADR and defines thenncharacteristics of eachnnAnalyzes the advantages and disadvantages of two types of ADR, but analysis is cursory ornndoes not define the characteristics of eachnnDoes not analyze the advantages and disadvantages of two types of ADRnn13nnCase Study One:nnADR PreferencennMeets “Proficient” criteria andnnoffers concrete examples to substantiate and comprehensively describe why the chosen types of ADR wouldnnbe preferred by the respective partiesnnApplies knowledge of ADR andnndiscusses which types of ADR each party (Funny Face, Novelty Now, and Margolin) might prefer and logically defends choicesnnApplies knowledge of ADR andnndiscusses which types of ADR each party might prefer, but discussion is cursory and/or does not discuss reasons fornnpreferences, or defense is i l logicalnnDoes not apply knowledge ofnnADR or discuss which types of ADR each party might prefernn13nnCase Study One: Criminal ActsnnMeets “Proficient” criteria and cites specific, applicable rules of lawnnApplies concepts of criminal law and discusses whether or not corporations and/or corporatennofficers may be held liable for criminal actsnnApplies concepts of criminal law and discusses whether or not corporations and/or corporatennofficers may be held liable for criminal acts, but discussion is cursory or lacks detailnnDoes not apply concepts of criminal law or discuss whether or not corporations and/ornncorporate officers may be held liable for criminal actsnn13n

n

nnCase Study One: Potential CriminalnnActsnnMeets “Proficient” criteria , and ideas are well supported with annotations from the textnnCorrectly identifies, per the classification of crimes in the text, any potential criminal acts by Funny Face and/or NoveltynnNownnIdentifies any potential criminal acts by Funny Face and/or Novelty Now, but criminal acts identified are incorrect for thisnncasennDoes not identify any potential criminal acts by Funny Face and/or Novelty Nownn13nnCase Study One: Potential CriminalnnLiabilitynnMeets “Proficient” criteria and cites scholarly research to support analysisnnApplies concepts of criminal law and discusses the potential criminal l iability of Funny Face, Chris, Matt, Ian, and NoveltynnNow and includes support for the conclusionnnApplies concepts of criminal law and discusses the potential criminal l iability of Funny Face, Chris, Matt, Ian, and NoveltynnNow but does not include support for the conclusion, or support is weaknnDoes not apply concepts of criminal law or discuss the potential criminal l iability of Funny Face, Chris, Matt, Ian, andnnNovelty Nownn13nnCase Study One: Ethical Decision-nnMakingnnMeets “Proficient” criteria and offers insight into thennrelationship between ethics and lawnnAccurately applies at least three guidelines of ethical decision-nnmaking to evaluate ethical issues within the context of the case studynnApplies at least three guidelines of ethical decision-making tonnevaluate ethical issues within the context of the case study, but application of guidelines hasnngaps in accuracy or logicnnDoes not apply at least three guidelines of ethical decision-nnmaking to evaluate ethical issues within the context of the case studynn13nnArticulation of ResponsennSubmission is free of errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, and organization and is presented innna professional and easy to read formatnnSubmission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organizationnnSubmission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impactnnreadability and articulation of main ideasnnSubmission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding ofnnideasnn9nn