This reflection entry is your final assignment for LAWS310. You will write an essay in the first person. The final essay should be 2-3 pages long.

Answer the following:

What were your expectations at the start of this course?
Describe your experiences during this course as to course assignments.
What have you learned or experienced that was useful for you in your current career?
How will this course help you in your future career?
How has this course helped you to develop?
Of the topics covered in this course, which were the most relevant to you?
What were your favorite things about the course?
What were your least favorite parts?
If you could change anything in this course, what would it be?
Which topic/course objective do you wish we would have spent more time on?
Looking to the future, what skills/knowledge learned in this class do you see yourself using?
Overall, how would you rate your performance in this class? Why? What you could have done better.
Closing thoughts on this course.

Textbook:
Legal Environment of Business

13th

Meiners/Ringleb/Edwards

2018 Cengage

-10-12 pages Be in correct APA style, clearly written, contain appropriate headings and be free from grammatical & spelling errors. An abstract and table of contents are not required.
– Include at least 15 scholarly references that are no more than three years old.

Learning activities
1. Visit Capellas Writing Center
Review the resources located in the Writing Center. Pay particular attention to the section regarding Academic Honesty.
Take the Writing Self-Assessment–attached
2. On iGuide, read:
The Capella University policy 3.01.01, Academic Honesty– attached
The Capella University policy 4.02.02, Learner Code of Conduct–attached
3. Research what the American Psychological Association states on this topic:
APA Ethical Principles reference the discussion on integrity in the writing process
APAs Publication Manual see the chapter Crediting Sources, and the introductory
discussion When to Cite
REFLECT on all of the information you have gained from reviewing the materials.

Written assignment
Incorporating your learning from the above sources:
1. Discuss the concepts of plagiarism, academic honesty, and academic integrity, specifically as
they relate to integrity at the personal, course room, and university levels;
2. Discuss the principles and protocols of citing ones sources;
3. Clarify the differences between quoting, paraphrasing and summarizing;
4. State the specific changes you will make to insure that you do not plagiarize again.

I had a look at your draft assignment and it looks good. Double check what you put down for the Pilon case as I think in that case, the small claims decision was upheld but I think the last line of that section says that it should remain with the family court. Please make corrections.

I hope this finds you well.

Pilon v. Lavine, 2016 Case Brief
Full Title: Pilon v. Lavine, 2016 ONSC 1965 (Div. Ct.)
Court: Division Courts.

Procedural History
The case involved a $12,000 debt following a divorce between Lavine and Pilon. According to the plaintiff, before their separation Lavine had offered the loan to Pilon and wanted the settlement of the loan to be part of the separation agreement. The loan payment therefore had to do with the settlement of the outstanding properties and debts and thus applied much to either the small claims debts or property litigations or in the higher courts levels of hearing the case. While the claimant maintains that she wants to hear the case in the small claims court, the defendant is pleading to keep the case in the family court. The judgment of the case should therefore depend on whether the court will find that the transaction was within the contexts of family law relations and not in the claims court or the other way around.
Issue
The main issue was whether the small claims court was the appropriate place for hearing the case. Essentially, the decision would highly depend on the nature of the claim and the nature of the transaction or agreement between the parties during the exchange.
Holding
The main points of contention have to do with the fact that if the case is to be heard in the family law relationship, then it means that the defendant is absolved of the debts and will only pay half of the amount since they are supposed to share the credit under the regulation. On the other hand, if the case is to be heard under the simple claims courts, it means that there was a business transaction and the defendant will be liable under the informal contract in the exchange to make a refund of the money. The hearing will therefore involve defining the nature of the exchange during the time of the exchange and determining whether the nature of the transaction would lead to a binding contract. Contexts that would leave the defendant free with no further arguing of the case include instances, where, for example, the plaintiff may have given the amount as a gift or a similar case.
Rules
The loan agreement and the nature of the transaction will determine how the defendant should pay back and the amounts that he should pay
The court will determine the existence of the loan agreement and the boundaries of the payment schedules and nature of the payment transactions
Reasoning
The main reasoning in the case has to do with the Uniform Marital Property Act that emerged in 1983 to define the way that the family should handle property and wealth during divorce and separation. Accordingly, the case suggests that there was a pending debt during the relationship that had to be arbitrated at the time of the separation. The court is to make a decision whether or not the debt qualifies in the case considering that the couple is separated and each individual is leading their own lives. The legal notion is that if the debt belonged to an asset that the couple shared then it would be judged under the family law relationship and both the defendant and Lavine will have to repay the debt.
Facts
Lavine and Pilon are separating from a marital relationship and have to mitigate the separation of properties and debts among the couple
According to the financial history, Pilon owed Lavine a sum of $24,000 of which Pilon payed half the amount as per the payment schedules of the loan agreement
At the end of the relationship, Pilon still owed the plaintiff $12,000 which Lavine requested to be settled as a small claims settlement.
The court found that the loan, which was evidenced by the agreement and payment schedule still fell under the family law relationship and would be heard as such since they were contingent to the contexts of marriage between the two.