USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
Peter and Andrew are brothers. Since childhood, they have wanted to convert a barn on their grandfather’s farm into a hunting and fishing lodge that would provide modest but comfortable accommodations for sportspersons using nearby recreational lands. Andrew has suggested that they bring his friend, Paul, into the business, as well. While Peter and Andrew would develop the property, Paul has experience in the hospitality industry and could manage the day-to-day operations. Peter and Andrew would also want to make the lodge available to local church groups for worship retreats. They haven’t yet discussed this with Paul, because they know he is not comfortable with most churches and their positions on social issues. The men are now discussing how to form the new business, and have narrowed their choices to a general partnership or a limited liability company (LLC). What would you advise, and why? Consider and discuss issues such as:
What personal liability will the owners have for the obligations of the business (contracts, debts, lawsuit judgments, etc.)
Should Paul be included as a co-owner, or in some other role? On what do you base that decision?
2 Corinthians 6:14–18 (For this passage, you should consult some trusted exegetical commentaries, many of which may be found on www.ccel.org.)
BUSI 301
DISCUSSION GRADING RUBRIC
Content 70%
(70 points)
Advanced
Key
9 to 10 points
Components – All key components of the
Thread
discussion prompt are
(10 points)
answered in the thread. The
required length and citation
requirements are met.
Discussion Thread – Levels of Achievement
Proficient
Developing
7 to 8 points
Most key components of
the discussion prompt are
answered in the thread. The
required length and citation
requirements are mostly
met.
Key
9 to 10 points
7 to 8 points
Components – Contribution made to
Marginal contribution made
Replies
discussion with each reply
to discussion with each
(10 points)
(2) expounding on the
reply (2) marginally
thread; replies are posted on expounding on the thread;
different days. The required replies are posted on
length and citation
different days. The required
requirements are met.
length and citation
requirements are mostly
met.
1 to 6 points
Some key components of
the discussion prompt are
answered in the thread. The
required length and citation
requirements are somewhat
met.
1 to 6 points
Minimal contribution (2
minimal or only 1 reply)
made to discussion; replies
are posted on the same day.
The required length and
citation requirements are
somewhat met.
Not present
Points
Earned
0 points
No key components of the
discussion prompt are
answered in the thread. The
required length and citation
requirements are not met.
0 points
No contribution made to
discussion. The required
length and citation
requirements are not met.
Page 1 of 4
BUSI 301
Major
Point
Support Thread
(25 points)
23 to 25 points
Major points are
supported by all of the
following: Reading &
Study materials;
pertinent, conceptual, or
personal examples;
thoughtful analysis
(considering
assumptions, analyzing
implications, and
comparing/contrasting
concepts); at least 2
scholarly source
citations, in addition to
the course textbook, in
current APA format; and
integration of at least 1
biblical principle with
citations.
18 to 22 points
Major points are
supported by most of the
following: Reading &
Study materials;
pertinent, conceptual, or
personal examples;
thoughtful analysis
(considering
assumptions, analyzing
implications, and
comparing/contrasting
concepts); at least 2
scholarly source
citations, in addition to
the course textbook, in
current APA format; and
integration of at least 1
biblical principle with
citations.
1 to 17 points
0 points
Major points are
supported by some of the
following: Reading &
Study materials;
pertinent, conceptual, or
personal examples;
thoughtful analysis
(considering assumptions,
analyzing implications,
and
comparing/contrasting
concepts); at least 2
scholarly source citations,
in addition to the course
textbook, in current APA
format; and integration of
at least 1 biblical
principle with citations.
Major points are
supported by none of the
following: Reading &
Study materials;
pertinent, conceptual, or
personal examples;
thoughtful analysis
(considering
assumptions, analyzing
implications, and
comparing/contrasting
concepts); at least 2
scholarly source
citations, in addition to
the course textbook, in
current APA format; and
integration of biblical
principles.
Page 2 of 4
BUSI 301
Major
Point
Support Replies
(25 points)
Structure
30%
(30 points)
Grammar/
Spelling Thread
(6 points)
23 to 25 points
Major points are supported
by all of the following:
Reading & Study materials;
pertinent, conceptual, or
personal examples;
thoughtful analysis
(considering assumptions,
analyzing implications, and
comparing/contrasting
concepts); at least 1
scholarly source citations,
in addition to the course
textbook, in current APA
format; and
integration of at least 1
biblical principle with
citations.
18 to 22 points
Major points are supported
by most of the following:
Reading & Study materials;
pertinent, conceptual, or
personal examples;
thoughtful analysis
(considering assumptions,
analyzing implications, and
comparing/contrasting
concepts); at least 1
scholarly source citations,
in addition to the course
textbook, in current APA
format; and
integration of at least 1
biblical principle with
citations.
1 to 17 points
Major points are supported
by some of the following:
Reading & Study materials;
pertinent, conceptual, or
personal examples;
thoughtful analysis
(considering assumptions,
analyzing implications, and
comparing/contrasting
concepts); at least 1
scholarly source citations, in
addition to the course
textbook, in current APA
format; and
integration of at least 1
biblical principle with
citations.
0 points
Major points are supported
by none of the following:
Reading & Study materials;
pertinent, conceptual, or
personal examples;
thoughtful analysis
(considering assumptions,
analyzing implications, and
comparing/contrasting
concepts); at least 1
scholarly source citations,
in addition to the course
textbook, in current APA
format; and
integration of at least 1
biblical principle with
citations.
Discussion Thread – Levels of Achievement
Advanced
Proficient
6 points
Correct spelling and
grammar are used
throughout the thread.
There are no errors in
grammar or spelling that
distract the reader from the
content.
4 to 5 points
There are 1–5 errors in
grammar or spelling that
distract the reader from the
content.
Developing
1 to 3 points
There are 6–10 errors in
grammar or spelling that
distract the reader from the
content.
Not present
Points
Earned
0 points
There are more than 10
errors in the grammar or
spelling that distract the
reader from the content
OR there is evidence of a
complete lack of
spellchecking and
proofreading.
Page 3 of 4
BUSI 301
Grammar/
Spelling –
Replies
(6 points)
6 points
Correct spelling and
grammar are used
throughout the replies.
There are no errors in
grammar or spelling that
distract the reader from the
content.
4 to 5 points
There are 1–5 errors in
grammar or spelling that
distract the reader from the
content.
1 to 3 points
There are 6–10 errors in
grammar or spelling that
distract the reader from the
content.
0 points
There are more than 10
errors in the grammar or
spelling that distract the
reader from the content
OR there is evidence of a
complete lack of spellchecking and proofreading.
APA Format
Compliance Thread
(6 points)
6 points
References are cited both
in-text and in a reference
list. There are no errors in
APA format in the required
citations.
4 to 5 points
References are cited both
in-text and in a reference
list. There are 1-5 minor
errors in APA format in the
required citations.
1 to 3 points
There are more than 5 errors
in APA format in the
required items and/or
required citations are
missing.
0 points
Required citations do not
exist, or demonstrate no
APA formatting or
structure.
APA Format
Compliance Replies
(6 points)
6 points
References are cited both
in-text and in a reference
list. There are no errors in
APA format in the required
citations.
4 to 5 points
References are cited both
in-text and in a reference
list. There are 1-5 minor
errors in APA format in the
required citations.
1 to 3 points
There are more than 5 errors
in APA format in the
required items and/or
required citations are
missing.
0 points
Required citations do not
exist, or demonstrate no
APA formatting or
structure.
Word Count 3 points
Thread
The minimum word count
(3 points)
of 300 words of substantive
content is met or exceeded.
2 points
Substantive word count is
between 200 and 300
words.
1 point
Substantive word count is
between 100 and 200 words.
0 points
There are fewer than 100
words of substantive
content.
Word Count 3 points
Replies
The minimum word count
(3 points)
of 100 words of substantive
content is met or exceeded
in each of two replies.
2 points
Substantive word count is
between 75 and 100 words
in one or both of two
replies.
1 point
Substantive word count is
between 50 and 75 words in
one or both of two replies.
0 points
There are fewer than 50
words of substantive
content in one or both of
two replies, including one
or both replies not posted.
TOTAL
Instructor’s Comments:
/100
Page 4 of 4
LEGAL STRATEGY 101
Forum Shopping
Page 103
Silicon Valley.
KiskaMedia/Getty Images
Forum shopping refers to a common strategic tactic by plaintiffs in civil
litigation. It occurs when a strategic plaintiff selects the most favorable
legal forum in which to initiate a lawsuit.
Forum shopping is often maligned and criticized, but it is a common
legal strategy. In fact, forum shopping provides a good illustration of
the preventive or risk-reduction legal strategy we saw at the end
of Chapter 1: the proactive practice of anticipating potential legal risks to
one’s business and taking preventive measures to reduce or manage
those risks.
By way of example, perhaps the single-greatest or looming legal risk that
all businesses face is the threat of litigation, and a common legal strategy
to address this risk is the use of well-drafted “forum selection clauses” in
business agreements. Let’s take a look at a real-world instance of this
preventive legal strategy.
Consider a familiar website like Facebook. With over two billion active
users, the threat of litigation is a daunting one. But to open a Facebook
account in the first place, a user must agree to Facebook’s terms of
service. (You can check out Facebook’s user agreement for yourself
here: https://www.facebook.com/terms.) Among the many provisions
in Facebook’s user agreement is the following forum selection clause:
You will resolve any claim, cause of action or dispute . . . you have with us arising out
of or relating to this [user agreement] or Facebook exclusively in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California or a state court located in San Mateo
County, and you agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of such courts for the
purpose of litigating all such claims.
In other words, because Facebook’s corporate headquarters are located
in Menlo Park, California (in San Mateo County), and because the closest
federal trial court is located in nearby San Jose, California (in next-door
Santa Clara County), if a Facebook user ever wants to sue Facebook for
any reason, he or she must do so in Facebook’s “back yard,” so to speak.
Moreover, notice how this legal strategy not only helps a giant business
firm like Facebook reduce its legal expenses by consolidating most of its
litigation in northern California; it also guarantees Facebook “home
court advantage” in cases involving out-of-state plaintiffs!
Yes, the law is supposed to be applied impartially, and yes, courts are
supposed to be fair and neutral, but in close cases, the benefit of securing
home court advantage cannot be underestimated, especially in jury
trials. In sum, because the risk of litigation is a real one, business firms
may take strategic measures—such as incorporating well-drafted “forum
selection clauses” into their business agreements before any litigation
ensues—in order to channel litigation toward a favorable legal forum or
secure home court advantage in the event of litigation.
