TPR – Sub 1 – August 5, 2019 – Needs Improvement. (Feed back from the professor) I would restructure this to directly address the questions. There are two relevant theories in Q1, Breach of Contract and Promissory Estoppel (this one you do address). Identify all the elements for each and apply them to the facts. This will then fuel your conversation about damages. The section on damages should be more thorough. Identify the different types of damages that would and would not apply. Are there any remedies? Can we get Mr. Piper his job back? The discussion on punitive damages is interesting research but ultimately is revealed to not apply, and so we will need to discuss more types of damages and remedies. The ethics concern in Q3 should be addressed like a legal question. 1. Identify the ethical theories, 2. apply the ethical theories to the facts. 3. discuss which theory is most appropriate. At this point in the reading, the course identifies a handful of theories…virtue, utilitarianism, deontology etc. And they don’t go into a great deal of depth. I would juxtapose utilitarianism and deontology and then compare the results. They are very different ethical theories that will result in an interesting conversation. This will result in having to scrap much of the pre-existing Q3 section. Consider some case law to support your legal discussion as well. New Table of Contents Executive Summary Facts Issue and Brief Answer Discussion Legal Analysis Damages and Remedies Ethical Considerations Conclusion

~~~For this or similar assignment papers~~~