1. Assignment 1 Structured Essay ENG2002_2015_S3
Description Marks out of Wtg(%) Due date
Assignment 1 100.00 10.00 End Week 4
(Fri 11th Dec, 2015)
Submit: pdf via EASE, using filename as
SURNAME_ENG2002_A1.pdf
Length: 1500 words (penalties will be applied if exceeded by
more than 20%)
Format: Essay style, typed, 12 font size, arial or times new
roman font, single
line spaced. Structure sentences into paragraphs, leaving a
single blank
line between paragraphs. The use of an occasional (ie. one, or
two)
diagram or photograph is acceptable, but do not overuse
diagrams, tables
or photographs. Use a few subheadings to augment the
structure of your
essay.
References: Include a single reference list at the end of the
assignment. Try to source
some refereed journal (ie. non-internet) high quality references.
Use in-
text citation of your references. The Harvard system of
referencing must
2. be used. Do not use too many references, just cite the most
important/
pertinent ones as this is a structured essay, not a report or
journal paper.
Extension policy: No extension allowed except in extenuating
circumstances – see Course
Specification.
Warning about plagiarism
You will be severely penalised if it is found that you have
copied verbatim from the work of other authors, including
from web sites. You may quote the work of others but
quotations should be used sparingly. For each question,
quotations should amount to no more than 5 per cent of the
specified word limit for that question, and each quotation
must be cited correctly. Plagiarism detection software may be
used to check your assignment. To answer the
assignment questions you are expected to consult your study
package and other sources. However, the work you
submit as your own work has to be in your own words. You are
encouraged to discuss the concepts covered in the
assignment questions with your classmates and others, but you
should not release your written responses to the
questions to anyone except the University. Students submitting
a section or sections of assignment work which is the
same as other students’ work will be severely penalised. Further
information about plagiarism can be found on the
University website.
Assignment One Essay (word limit : 1500) (100 marks)
3. This assignment is relevant to the following course objectives :
affairs of the day
fits
to human society
sustainability
assessment
government
relevance of social structures and values) #
-cultural
environments) #
engineering management) #
# not formally covered in the course until later than week 4, but
the assignment does marginally touch on these areas
Introduction.
The recent large expansion of marine shrimp farming in
Bangladesh is having significant
social and environmental consequences. By way of introduction
to assignment one, please
4. watch the following YouTube video :-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlX7nkxAqWY
Assignment Task
Write an essay on ‘The problems associated with Marine Shrimp
Farming in Bangladesh’.
i) Introduction/background - briefly describe the industry and
the market for marine
shrimp in Europe and worldwide. Describe the relevant social
and environmental
impacts (~300 words).
ii) Expression of a likely viewpoint from a local village elder,
whose people may be
severely affected by the industry (~300 words)
iii) Expression of a likely viewpoint from either a marine
shrimp
grower/producer/merchant/exporter (your choice, ~300 words)
iv) Expression of a likely viewpoint from a powerful ruling
politician in Bangladesh
(either one who would like shrimp farming to continue because
of its export
potential, or one which represents the disaffected
farmers/people) (~300 words)
5. v) Conclusion/overview/recommendations (~300 words)
In points ii), iii) and iv) you may write in first or third person.
Write for a hypothetical, not a
real person. In your research, demonstrate that you have
considered and been guided by the
course learning objectives (to found on page 12 of the course
introduction booklet).
Marking criteria
Assessment of your assignment will be based on your ability to
summarise a problem
concisely, and also your ability to recognise, understand the
viewpoints of others. Marks will
be awarded according to the following criteria :-
y and style) 15 marks
15 marks
15 marks
15 marks
clusion (Quality and style) 15 marks
49. By: admin in Fulltext Opinion, Massachusetts Superior Court
August 22, 2005
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUFFOLK, SS. SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 03-5064-A
BRENDAN BOSSE, minor by his mother and next friend,
ANN MARIE BOSSE,
and
MICHAEL GRIFFIN, minor by his father and next friend,
MICHAEL GRIFFIN, SR.,
Plaintiffs,
V.
BRINKER RESTAURANT CORPORATION d/b/a CHILI’S GRI
LL AND BAR,
Defendant.
RULING
Upon
DEFENDANT BRINKER RESTAURANT CORPORATION’S
50. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
_____________________________________________________
____________________
RULING .
Upon consideration of all motion and opposition materials, incl
uding all affidavits, exhibits, verified answers to interrogatories
, deposition excerpts, memoranda of
law, and of oral arguments by all parties, the court hereby ALL
OWS defendant Brinker Restaurant Corporation’s motion for a f
ull summary judgment against all
plaintiffs.
REASONING .
The two plaintiff teenagers, Brendan Bosse and Michael Griffin,
through their parental next friends, are suing the defendant Bri
nker Restaurant Corporation, doing
business as the “Chili’s Grill and Bar” restaurant chain (hereina
fter “Chili’s”), for compensatory damages for personal injuries.
The injuries resulted from a high
speed car chase. The teenagers allege that another driver pursue
d them negligently, grossly negligently, or recklessly, so as to c
ause them to crash. They claim
that the pursuer was acting as a servant or agent of a Chili’s Res
taurant. Details will follow.
Summary Judgment Standards .
Summary judgment is appropriate if a plaintiff has no reasonabl
e expectation of proving an essential element of his claim. Kour
ouvacilis v. General Motors
Corporation, 410 Mass. 706, 716 (1991); Tambolleo v. Town of
West Boylston, 34 Mass. App. Ct. 526, 530 (1993).
51. Summary judgment is inappropriate if a genuine issue of materi
al fact remains open. For that determination the motion judge m
ust examine the factual materials
in the light most favorable to the party resisting summary judgm
ent. Corellas v. Viveiros, 410 Mass. 314, 316-317 (1991); Kelle
y v. Rossi, 395 Mass. 659, 661
(1985); and Conley v. MBTA, 405 Mass. 168, 173 (1989).
The Undisputed Facts
In the light most favorable to the plaintiffs Bosse and Griffin, th
e undisputed factual materials tell the following story.
On the evening of September 20, 2003, Bosse and Griffin were
part of a group of four teenagers ordering and eating a meal at t
he Chili’s Restaurant on the
Providence Highway, Route 1, Dedham. The tab for the meal ca
me to $56. They decided not to pay. They went out of the buildi
ng, got in their car (a gold-colored
Camry), and headed northward up Route 1.
A regular patron of the restaurant saw them leave without paym
ent. He followed them in a white sports utility vehicle. They sa
w him following. They drove into a
parking lot at a nearby Best Buy electronics store. The pursuing
patron followed them into that lot. He got out of his SUV and y
elled words to the effect that he
had seen them skip out on their bill at Chili’s and that they wou
ld not get away with it. The patron’s car was unmarked; it bore
no Chili’s insignia. He wore civilian
clothing and no uniform or other insignia of employment at Chil
i’s.
http://masslawyersweekly.com/
http://masslawyersweekly.com/fulltext-opinions/author/admin/
52. http://masslawyersweekly.com/fulltext-
opinions/category/fulltext-opinion/
http://masslawyersweekly.com/fulltext-
opinions/category/courts/massachusetts-superior-court/
2016/1/5
- BOSSE, et al. v. BRINKER RESTAURANT CORPORATION
D/B/A CHILI'S | Full-text Opinions
http://masslawyersweekly.com/fulltext-opinions/2005/08/22/bos
se-et-al-v-brinker-restaurant-corporation-dba-chilis/ 2/3
The teenagers then drove out of the Best Buy lot. The patron pu
rsued them. A high speed chase ensued through Dedham side str
eets.
By cell phone the patron was communicating to a male employe
e at Chili’s a description of the teenagers’ car and the path of th
e chase. The male employee, in
turn, was giving this information to the outlet manager, Frank C
onway. Conway called 911 and informed the dispatcher (a) that
the teenagers had run out on
their bill, (b) that some of “our regulars were leaving and they .
. . they followed them and they just phoned back saying that the
y were down by the CVS and the
high school.” Conway described the teenagers’ gold-colored Ca
mry to the dispatcher.
As Conway’s call was in progress, the 911 dispatcher was recei
ving multiple calls from observers reporting a crash of an autom
obile in the vicinity of Dedham
High School. In the course of the high speed chase, the teenager
s had collided with a cement or brick wall. The plaintiffs Bosse
and Griffin suffered the injuries
generating the present lawsuit against Chili’s.
53. The Chili’s patron continued past the crash scene and left the ar
ea. He remains unidentified.
Analysis .
The plaintiffs sue upon the theory of respondeat superior. They
contend that the Chili’s patron converted to a Chili’s servant; th
at he conducted his chase as an
agent of the restaurant; and that the restaurant should be liable f
or the consequences of his negligent or reckless pursuit.
In these circumstances an agency relationship will require three
elements. Most obviously, Chili’s must have consented to the ac
tion of the patron in its behalf.
Restatement of Agency (Second), § 1(1). Second, Chili’s must h
ave retained control, or the right of control, over the physical co
nduct of the patron in the
performance of the pursuit. Hohenlestner v. Quorum Health Ser
vices Resources, Inc., 435 Mass. 424, 436 (2001); Kelley v. Ros
si, 395 Mass. 659, 661 (1985);
Kovich v. Burke Moore Co., Inc., 355 Mass. 463, 468 (1969); a
nd Restatement of Agency (Second), § 1(1). Third, the conduct
of the agent must serve the benefit
or further the interest of the principal. Pinshaw v. Metropolitan
District Commission, 402 Mass. 687, 694 (1988); Kelley v. Mid
dlesex Corporation, 35 Mass. App.
Ct. 30, 32 (1993); and Restatement of Agency (Second), §§ 39,
228 (1958). Do the undisputed material facts permit a genuine is
sue whether Chili’s (1)
consented to, (2) controlled, and (3) benefitted from, the pursuit
of the deadbeat teenagers by the zealous patron?
1. Consent. The evidence is insufficient to create a genuine issu
e whether Chili’s
54. appointed or authorized the patron to act as a posse to conduct a
chase. No information indicates any preliminary communicatio
n between the patron and
restaurant manager, Conway. The events were spontaneous and f
ast breaking. No member of Chili’s house staff joined in the pur
suit. (Manager Conway gave
deposition testimony to the effect that Chili’s had an unwritten
but express policy forbidding staff to pursue a tab-dodgers out o
f the building. I do not rely upon
that representation for purposes of the present analysis.) The pla
intiffs argue that Chili’s effectively assented to an agency relati
onship by acceptance of the
patron’s reconnaissance reports during the course of the chase;
and by its failure to instruct him to break off the chase. That cir
cumstance is not enough. The
patron need not have been an agent to engage in that conduct. H
e was pursuing petty crime. Chili was reporting the petty crime
to the police. No meaningful
private beneficial relationship was necessary for those purposes.
No information indicates that any authorized person at Chili’s d
eputized the unidentified chaser as a collection agent.
2. Control. The evidence does not support a finding of control o
r a right of control. From the speed of events no opportunity aro
se for communication or
agreement between manager Conway and the patron. No underst
anding between them materialized. No information indicates tha
t Chili’s had any effective
control over the patron; that is, that Conway could have comma
nded the patron to give up the excitement of the chase. Nor does
it seem plausible that the
restaurant would have accepted control or supervision over a hi
gh speed chase through the side streets of the adjacent communi
ty.
55. 3. Benefit or furtherance. The maximum benefit available to Chi
li’s was recovery of the $56. The comparative insignificance of
that benefit detracts from, if it does
not eliminate altogether, another necessary element of the propo
sed agency relationship: the furtherance of a meaningful interest
of the alleged principal. No
such serious interest existed here. Rather Chili’s received a min
or, voluntary, unrequested benefit independently of any legal rel
ationship, agency or otherwise,
with the patron. The voluntary conferral of such a benefit create
s no legal relationship. Restatement of Restitution § 112 (1936).
The dominant purpose of Chili’s
relay of the patron’s reports to the police appears to have been t
he public interest in the apprehension of petty criminals and not
the private recovery of the
unpaid bill.
Conclusion.
For these reasons no genuine issue of material fact emerges upo
n a claim of an agency relationship. The information generated
by discovery does not permit an
inference that Chili’s consented to such a relationship; that it ha
d the right of control necessary for such a relationship; or that it
possessed a genuine interest or
benefit in such a relationship. The burden of the plaintiffs is to
establish at least a genuine question of the presence of all three
elements. If the evidence had
failed to materialize upon any one of those elements, the deficie
ncy would be fatal to the lawsuit. The evidence appears to have
failed to materialize upon all
three of the elements.
Consequently, the plaintiffs enjoy no reasonable expectation of
proving an agency relationship.
57. Type of service:
Writing from scratch
Work type:
Essay (any type)
Subject or discipline:
Law
Title:
Agent or Vigilante?
Number of sources:
0
Paper format:
MLA
# of pages:
2
Spacing:
Double spaced
# of words:
550
Paper details:
Read the case Bosse v. Brinker Restaurant Corporation, d.b.a.
Chili's Grill and Bar and write a 500 word short paper essay
explaining why you think the plaintiffs even sued Chili's. What
is the law of agency as it applies in this case? Do you think the
court reached the proper result? Why? Do you think it was
ethical for the plaintiffs to sue considering the fact that the
injured parties were essentially stealing from Chili's when the
accident occurred? Do you think they should instead sue the
restaurant patron who followed them up until the point of the
accident (assuming they could find him)? Would the result in
that case (against the patron) be different?
Mentions facts twice and cites source
Correctly explains the law of agency including creation and
liability for torts
Presents both sides of the argument concerning the creation of
an agency and then gives an opinion.