| Course | BUSI 2001 Business Law |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 8 |
| Paper type | Citation audit |
| Length | About 920 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for BUSI 2001 Week 8
Auditing Six Citations in a One-Page Memo on a Canceled Catering Contract: Which Sources Support the Claims They Were Offered For, Which Only Partly Do, Which Are Accurate but Beside the Point and Which Do Not Support Them at All
Student Name
Walden University
BUSI 2001: Business Law
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Auditing Six Citations in a One-Page Memo on a Canceled Catering Contract: Which Sources Support the Claims They Were Offered For, Which Only Partly Do, Which Are Accurate but Beside the Point and Which Do Not Support Them at All
The Document Audited
The document is a one-page internal memo written by a junior manager at a composite catering company in Omaha after a client canceled a 300-guest corporate dinner nine days before the event. The memo argues that the caterer can recover its lost profit from the client and supports its points with six citations. The owner asked for an audit before relying on the memo. Each citation below is checked against the specific claim it was offered for, with one of four verdicts: supports, partly supports, accurate but beside the point, or does not support.
The Audit
Table 1
Six Citations Checked Against Their Claims
| No. | Claim in the memo | Source cited | What the source actually says | Verdict | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | A contract exists if a reasonable person would see agreement, whatever one side privately intended | Lucy v. Zehmer | Intent is judged by outward words and conduct, not secret intentions | Supports | |
| 2 | The caterer may recover every dollar of profit it lost because of the cancellation | Hadley v. Baxendale | Damages are limited to losses that arise naturally or were contemplated when the contract was made | Partly supports | |
| 3 | The menu items are goods, so the sales article of the UCC applies | Mallor et al., business law textbook | Mixed contracts are classified by their predominant purpose | Partly supports, and may cut the other way | |
| 4 | The client's signed proposal was a binding offer the caterer accepted | Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. | An advertisement promising a specific reward can be an offer accepted by performance | Accurate but beside the point | |
| 5 | The client had a duty to cancel early to reduce the caterer's losses | Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. | A tort defendant owes a duty only to foreseeable plaintiffs | Does not support | |
| 6 | Damages should put the caterer where it would have been had the dinner gone ahead | Hawkins v. McGee | Contract damages give the injured party the benefit of the bargain | Supports | |
The caterer and its memo are composite. The cases are real and summarized by the auditor.
Explaining Each Verdict
Citation 1 holds. The memo uses the objective theory of contract formation to argue that the client's signed proposal created a contract, and that is exactly the rule the court applied (Lucy v. Zehmer, 1954).
Citation 2 only partly supports the claim. The memo says the caterer can recover "every dollar" of lost profit, including profit from two smaller events it turned away for that date. The case limits recoverable damages to those that would naturally follow from the breach or that both parties reasonably contemplated when they contracted (Hadley v. Baxendale, 1854). The profit on the canceled dinner itself is likely recoverable; profit on the turned-away events is recoverable only if the client knew the caterer would be turning away other work, which the memo does not show.
Citation 3 partly supports the claim and may undercut it. The textbook explains that a contract mixing goods with services is classified by what it is mainly for, its predominant purpose (Mallor et al., 2022). A catered dinner involves food, but also cooking, staff, service and setup. A court could well find services predominate, in which case the common law of contracts, not Article 2, applies. The memo cites the source for a conclusion the source does not settle.
Citation 4 is accurate but beside the point. The case is a famous example of an advertisement treated as an offer that could be accepted by performing its conditions (Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co., 1893). But the catering contract was formed by a signed proposal between two businesses, not by an advertisement to the public. The case adds nothing the memo needs and may confuse a reader into thinking formation is in doubt.
Citation 5 does not support the claim at all. The case concerns negligence: whether a railroad owed a duty to a passenger injured by an event it could not foresee (Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 1928). It says nothing about a contract party's timing in canceling. In contract law, the duty to mitigate falls on the injured party, here the caterer, which must take reasonable steps to reduce its losses, for example by trying to rebook the date. The memo has the doctrine backward as well as citing the wrong source.
Citation 6 holds. The case is a standard illustration that contract damages aim to give the injured party the benefit of its bargain (Hawkins v. McGee, 1929).
What the Audit Means for the Memo
After the audit, the memo's core argument survives: a contract was formed, the client breached by canceling and the caterer may recover the profit it expected from the dinner. Three corrections are needed. The claim for profit on the turned-away events should be dropped or supported with evidence that the client knew. The Article 2 claim should be removed or replaced with an analysis of the predominant purpose. And the paragraph on mitigation should be rewritten to recognize that the caterer must show what it did to reduce its own losses. The memo would be stronger with four citations than with six. None of these corrections touches the claim the memo most needs, that a binding contract existed and the client broke it nine days before the dinner.
References
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co., 1 Q.B. 256 (1893).
Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Ex. 341, 156 Eng. Rep. 145 (1854).
Hawkins v. McGee, 84 N.H. 114, 146 A. 641 (1929).
Lucy v. Zehmer, 196 Va. 493, 84 S.E.2d 516 (1954).
Mallor, J. P., Barnes, A. J., Bowers, L. T., & Langvardt, A. W. (2022). Business law: The ethical, global, and e-commerce environment (18th ed.). McGraw Hill.
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928).
BUSI 2001 Week 8 instructions, in plain terms
In Week 8 you audit the sources in a short piece of legal writing. For each citation, record the claim it is offered for, what the source actually holds and a verdict: supports, partly supports, accurate but beside the point or does not support. A table works well. Then explain each verdict in a short paragraph, naming the specific gap between claim and source. Finish by assessing what the document's argument looks like once the weak citations are removed or replaced, and list the corrections needed. The audit tests your reading of the sources, so describe each case accurately.
How the BUSI 2001 Week 8 example is put together
The paper describes the catering memo and its argument for damages. A six-row table lists each claim and verdict. Lucy v. Zehmer supports the claim that a contract was formed. Hadley only partly supports a claim to every dollar of lost profit, since profit from turned-away events needed the client's knowledge. The textbook's predominant-purpose test may cut against applying Article 2 to a catered dinner. Carlill concerns an advertisement offer and is beside the point. Palsgraf is a negligence case and says nothing about mitigation. Hawkins v. McGee supports benefit-of-the-bargain damages. The final section keeps the memo's core claim and lists three corrections.
BUSI 2001 Week 8 rubric: what earns full marks
Citation audits are graded on accuracy and precision. The student must describe what each source actually holds, which requires reading it, and must match the verdict to the gap between claim and source. A verdict without an explanation earns little. Strong audits distinguish a source that is wrong for the claim from one that is accurate but irrelevant, and they notice when a source cuts against the writer. Every row of the table needs a matching paragraph, and the two must agree. The closing assessment should be fair, saying what survives as well as what fails. Overstating the problems or excusing them both lose credit.
BUSI 2001 Week 8 help from the desk
Take each citation one at a time and find the sentence it supports. Then read the source and write down, in a line, what it decides. Compare the two lines. If the source decides the same point, it supports; if it decides a narrower point, it partly supports; if it decides something true but different, it is beside the point; if it concerns a different area of law, it does not support. Cases are often cited for their fame rather than their holding. Weak audits judge sources by reputation or skip the closing assessment. If you are auditing a document of your own, send it along and we can show how a model audit would treat it. Remember too that some famous cases are cited mainly because readers recognize their names, which is exactly why auditing them matters.
Get a BUSI 2001 Week 8 example written to your instructions
Send the passage under review with its reference list, plus the rubric, and a completed BUSI 2001 audit returns within 24-48 hours, the first at no cost. The five failures sketched above are illustrative types rather than answers; the sample checks the actual citations in your section's material and reports what those sources say.
More BUSI 2001 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- BUSI 2001 Week 1: Legal Question Discussion Post
- BUSI 2001 Week 2: Lucy v. Zehmer Case Brief
- BUSI 2001 Week 3: Issue-Spotting Inventory
- BUSI 2001 Week 4: Non-Compete Rule Restatement
- BUSI 2001 Week 5: Authority Check Peer Response
- BUSI 2001 Week 6: Non-Compete Application Memo
- BUSI 2001 Week 7: Services Agreement Clause Reading
- BUSI 2001 Week 9: Opposing Argument and Response
- BUSI 2001 Week 10: Gateway Case Comparison
- BUSI 2001 Week 11: Contractor Classification Memo
- BUSI 3010 Week 8: Forecast Method Comparison
- BUSI 3014 Week 8: Seasonal Trend Read
- BUSI 3016 Week 8: Revenue Variance Explanation
- BUSI 4002 Week 8: Venture Risk Register
BUSI 2001 Week 8 questions, answered
Where can I find a free BUSI 2001 Week 8 sample paper?
The six-row audit table and all its verdicts are reproduced on this page, free and in full.
Which sources in the BUSI 2001 Week 8 audit fully support their claims?
Lucy v. Zehmer, for contract formation, and Hawkins v. McGee, for benefit-of-the-bargain damages.
Why does Palsgraf fail as a source?
It is a negligence case about duty to foreseeable plaintiffs and says nothing about a contracting party's duty to reduce losses.
Why is Carlill beside the point?
It shows that an advertisement can be an offer, but the catering contract was formed through a signed proposal.
Does the memo's argument survive the audit?
Yes. A contract was formed and breached, but three corrections are needed, including dropping the claim for profit on turned-away events.