Order ready-to-submit essays. No Plagiarism Guarantee!
Note: All our papers are written from scratch by human writers to ensure authenticity and originality.
Final Project Rubric
Check your essay before you submit. See exactly what your professor sees.
See your AI and plagiarism results before your instructor does.Get the exact same report your professor uses. Trusted by 50,000+ students worldwide.
Guidelines for Submission: Each of the three reports should be one to two 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 decisionmaking 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 decisionmaking 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-bystep 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
