Instructions for FIRAC Paper # 3

Preparing for the Assignment:

Before you begin writing your FIRAC paper, make sure to review all the comments on your prior papers. If you lost points for not following the FIRAC module or have feedback reminding you not to assert your conclusion after your facts and before the issue, or not to blend components of the issue, rule, and/or analysis in the same section of the paper, you may want to review the explanation of the FIRAC model in iCollege (in the Syllabus module) and in the LGLS 3610 E-Textbook (in the Content Section of the Introduction to the Law Module).

Youll find readings, hints to writing a better IRAC analysis, as well as three videos on what IRAC is and how to use it. Even the fourth lecture video for the Intro to Law Module discusses legal reasoning and the FIRAC model.

Formatting Requirements and Penalties:

• Include a heading on the first page of your paper with your name, the date, and the name of the scenario.
  • -1 point for each missing piece in the heading of your paper (your name, the date, and the name of the scenario)
• Continue to use FIRAC headings on your paper.
  • -2 points for not using FIRAC headings
• Use a 12-point font and at least 1 margins (top and bottom, left and right).
  • -1 point for using a smaller font
• Double-space your paper and use left justification. That makes it easier for me to grade and insert comments.
  • -5 points for single spacing or using space-and-a-half instead of double-spacing your paper
  • -2 points if your paper uses center, right, and both left/right justification
• Write each section of your paper as an essay in narrative form, using complete sentences and no bulleted lists or additional subheadings.
  • -5 points for each bulleted list or use of bold subheadings within any of the FIRAC sections
• References: Like your first FIRAC paper, do NOT research your topic. All the legal rules you need are in the appropriate Contracts module, lectures, and e-book readings. Like the earlier papers, however, you need to cite two of the sources in your paper, typically in explaining the pertinent legal rule or as support for your application of the legal rule(s) to the facts in your Application section. As a new requirement, you also need to tell me how you are using the reference. Citing the O.C.M.A. statutory provisions in the scenario DO NOT COUNT as either of the two additional required sources.
  • -1 to -3 points for an appropriate reference that is not properly cited, does not explain how it is being used, and/or an e-book reference that lacks an embedded link
  • -5 points for each missing reference (remember that you are required to have two) and
  • -10 points if you use a reference that is not posted in the course website on iCollege or that is not in the e-book.
  • Score of 0: If I am unable to locate your reference, or if it appears to be a fictitious or unrelated reference generated by AI, you will receive a zero on the paper. If you received a 0 on an earlier paper for suspected AI use, I will also file formal academic misconduct charges against you.
• AI tools that proofread text for grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors can also suggest replacement words and phrases and generate text. Thus, when you use tools like Grammarly, Quilbot, Microsoft Co-pilot, ChatGPT, editGPT, Wordvice, AppleAI, or Google Gemini to “proofread” and “correct” your papers, Turnitin’s AI detection tool flags your paper as AI-generated or AI-assisted text.
  • I asked you to inform me if you used Grammarly or another tool on your second paper, and didn’t impose any penalty, but I am concerned that some students now regard a “Grammarly” notice as a safe harbor that will protect them from penalty for using these tools to generate text (and analysis) and not just to correct minor writing errors.
  • If I suspect AI-assistance in the analysis and writing of your final FIRAC paper, I will ask you to provide an original draft (before you asked Grammarly or another AI tool to proofread it), so that I can compare the original draft to the final submission to determine how much, if any, text was “written” by AI. I also urge you to track changes and/or to save drafts (under different file names) so that you can produce earlier versions of your paper that show your edits, additions, and deletions. Before submitting their final FIRAC #2 papers, a few students uploaded handwritten outlines and earlier versions of their papers. Please feel free to do so — I grade only the last version submitted.
• After your conclusion and before you insert your word count, please include the following Honor Code(if appropriate, of course):
  • Honor Code: I have not used any generative AI tool, including but not limited to ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, Grammarly, and/or Claude, to help me analyze the Brandi Albright and Brandi’s Bistro v Cooke scenario or to outline, organize, draft, edit, or polish my writing of this FIRAC paper.
  • If you do not include the Honor Code, I will assume that you have impermissibly used generative AI to help you analyze and/or write the paper and will not grade it.
• Remember to include the word count (excluding the heading and title of your paper) and put that number at the end of your paper in a parenthetical.
  • -1 point for not including a word count

  • Specific Instructions for FIRAC Paper #3:

    Albright and Brandi’s Bistro v Cooke

    Instructions

    Using the FIRAC model, analyze Brandi Albright’s claims against Sandy Cooke for breach of her agreement not to compete with Brandi’s Bistro. FACTS: Summarize the material facts, including the procedural facts (who sued whom and for what) in your own words. While it’s important to tell the “story” of what happened, try not to include unnecessary detail. It is also generally a good idea to revisit the fact statement after you have written the application section, so that you can verify that every fact used in your analysis was first included in the fact statement.ISSUE: In stating the issue, make sure that you incorporate the material facts into your issue that will help your reader better understand why Albright is suing Cooke. RULE: The scenario provides you with several provisions from the statute that governs the enforceability of covenants not to compete in Mythigan. Do your best to summarize the relevant statutory provisions objectively and in your own words, without reference to the parties or any facts of the scenario. And, of course, make sure that you are summarizing the legal rule in narrative format, without numbered or bulleted lists. REQUIRED REFERENCES: Remember that citations to the Mythigan statute in your paper do not count as one of your two required references. Instead, you will need to cite to content in the Contracts lectures slides or to readings or videos in the Contracts Module in the e-book related to covenants not to compete. Cite to the 2022 e-book reading, 5 Things You Need to Know about Non-Compete Agreements, which says that in most states, restrictions up to 5 years are usually considered reasonable.Remember to incorporate your citations into the text of your paper where you use them, and not in a separate bibliography. For references to lectures, indicate which lecture and slide number in your parenthetical citation. For e-book links, include the name of the item and an embedded link to the source. Note that for FIRAC Paper #3, I will deduct 5 points from your FIRAC score for each missing resource and 10 points for each reference not provided on iCollege or in the e-book (so you will be penalized for independently researching for citations)! If I cannot locate or verify a reference and believe that it is a fictitious reference, possibly generated by AI, you will receive a zero on the paper.APPLICATION: In this section, you should explicitly and systematically show your reader how the facts are connected to each component of the appropriate legal rules, using the rule/fact, rule/fact format. To conduct a thorough analysis of the legal issues, you will need to analyze

    • whether the covenant not to compete with Brandi’s Bistro that Cooke signed is valid and enforceable
    • if the covenant not to compete is valid, has Cooke breached it, such that Brandi Albright is entitled to the remedies she seeks? [If your analysis leads you to conclude that Brandi is entitled to damages, you do not have to determine the measure of damages, i.e., how much she would be entitled to recover.]
    • if the covenant not to compete is not enforceable as written, could/should it be rewritten to make it enforceable? If so, how, and as rewritten, would Cooke have breached it when she was hired by The Willow Table?
    • whether Cooke has used confidential information acquired while working for Brandi’s Bistro after starting to work for The Willow Table? If so, is Brandi Albright entitled to the remedies she is seeking?

    Do NOT consider whether Cooke has breached any fiduciary duties owed to Brandi’s Bistro. As indicated above, if you conclude that the Bistro is entitled to damages, you do not have to compute how much or the formula the court would use to determine the amount of damages.This should be the longest section of your paper, as you need to guide your reader, step by step, through your analysis to your conclusion. If you lost a lot of points on this section of your earlier papers, go back and review my comments to make sure you understand HOW to link rules and facts. If you still have questions, review the FIRAC instructional materials and/or meet with one of the GTAs during their virtual office hours.CONCLUSION: Make sure to briefly state the reasons for your conclusion(s), but don’t repeat all of your analysis. You can use the format “Because X, Y, and Z, Sandy Cooke will (or will not) be liable to Bradi Albright and Brandi’s Bistro for … ” Honor Code: Copy and paste the Honor Code from the General Instructions beneath your Conclusion, but only if you did NOT use any form of generative AI in analyzing or writing your paper. See General Instructions for more information.Word Count: Don’t forget to include your word count beneath your Honor Code.

    Brandi Albright & Brandis Bistro v. Sandy Cooke

    After operating a food truck in downtown Atlantis for three years, Brandi Albright opened a bistro in 2015. Situated between two major universities and near hotels, museums, sports and entertainment venues, Brandis Bistro established a local reputation for an eclectic mix of comfort and bar foods, reflecting Brandis southern heritage. When in-restaurant dining declined during the COVID pandemic, the Bistro expanded into catering, which attracted a new and devoted clientele. After a bitter dispute with her pastry chef that ended up in court, however, she changed directions again, and in early 2022, Brandis Bistro began offering a farm-to-table menu.
    The new menu attracted health-conscious and environmentally aware diners who live or work in Atlantis, or who travel downtown to attend sporting events, concerts, and other entertainment offerings. The Bistro sources most of its supplies from Mythigan farmers who certify that they use sustainable practices to produce pasture-raised organic meat and poultry on family farms, as well as organic vegetables, grains, herbs, and produce. To help launch the farm-to-table menu, Brandi hired Sandy Cooke as chef. Sandy had trained under Alice Waters, who pioneered the farm-to-table movement with her restaurant Chez Panisse in Berkeley, California, but had returned to Mythigan to be closer to family. Hoping to avoid the types of personnel and legal issues caused when she terminated Kathy Sheffields employment, Brandi insisted that Cooke sign an employment agreement prepared by the Bistros attorney. The agreement included the following provisions: Covenant Not to Compete. Employee recognizes and agrees that this covenant not to compete is necessary to ensure continuation of Brandis Bistro business and reputation and that irreparable harm and damage will be done to the Bistro if Employee competes with Brandis Bistro in the area specified below. Employee also acknowledges that she will have access and be privy to confidential information regarding local suppliers, menus, and recipes used by the Bistro, and is prohibited from using such confidential information after termination from employment with Brandis Bistro.Employee further agrees that for a period of two (2) years following the termination of employment with Brandis Bistro, she will not, directly or indirectly, engage in, be employed by, or provide culinary services to any restaurant or food establishment within forty (40) miles of Brandis Bistro that competes with it in offering similar cuisine or dining experiences.Over the next three years, Cooke became well known for her creative, seasonal dishes and developed strong relationships with local suppliers and customers. In July 2025, she resigned and, just two weeks later, accepted a position as head chef at The Willow Table, a neighborhood caf located thirty-eight (38) miles away from Brandis Bistro that uses fresh, in-season local and organic produce, dairy, and meat, to offer American cuisine with a Southern twist, an extensive tapas menu, and freshly crafted pizzas. Within weeks, The Willow Table began offering seasonal Southern dishes very similar to those developed and prepared by Cooke for Brandis Bistro in the three years she worked for the BistroBrandi Albright, the owner of Brandis Bistro, claims that Sandy Cookes new employment at The Willow Table violates the terms of her non-compete agreement and has caused Brandis Bistro to lose customers and goodwill. Albright has filed a lawsuit in Mythigan state court against Cooke, seeking damages for breach of the covenant in her employment contract not to compete, and an injunction to prevent Cooke from working at The Willow Table for the duration of her non-compete agreement with Brandis Bistro.
    Cooke argues that the non-compete clause in her employment contract with Brandis Bistro is unreasonable and unenforceable because it unfairly restricts her ability to work in her chosen field and is broader than necessary to protect the restaurants legitimate business interests. Thus, she claims that the non-compete agreement is void.
    The state of Mythigan has a statute governing the enforceability of non-compete agreements. Under Mythigan O.C.M.A. 8-13-5: (a) Enforcement of contracts that restrict competition during the term of a restrictive covenant, so long as such restrictions are reasonable in time, geographic area, and scope of prohibited activities, shall be permitted. However, enforcement of contracts that restrict competition after the term of employment may only be enforced against the following types of employees: (1) salespeople; (2) managers who regularly supervise two or more employees and have the authority to hire and fire; or (3) key employees or professionals. Cite to the 2022 e-book reading, 5 Things You Need to Know about Non-Compete Agreements, which says that geographic restrictions that exceed 30 miles are considered unreasonable. b) Any restrictive covenant not in compliance with the provisions of this article is unlawful and is void and unenforceable; provided, however, that a court may modify a covenant that is otherwise void and unenforceable so long as the modification does not render the covenant more restrictive with regard to the employee than as originally drafted by the parties. [This is the so-called blue pencil rule.] Discuss the doctrine of respondeat superior.(c) Nothing in this article shall be construed to limit the period of time for which a party may agree to maintain information as confidential or as a trade secret, or to limit the geographic area within which such information must be kept confidential or as a trade secret, for so long as the information or material remains confidential or a trade secret, as applicable. O.C.M.A. 8-13-6 provides the following:A court shall construe a restrictive covenant to comport with the reasonable intent and expectations of the parties to the covenant and in favor of providing reasonable protection to all legitimate business interests (such as trade secrets, customer relationships, or specialized training) established by the person seeking enforcement.Using the FIRAC model, analyze the scenario and determine if the non-compete agreement in Sandy Cookes employment contract with Brandis Bistro is enforceable, and if so, whether Cooke breached that agreement. If you conclude that the covenant not to compete is unenforceable as written, could the court revise any provisions to make it enforceable, and if so, should they do so? How? You also need to consider whether Cooke used confidential information of Brandi’s Bistro after she began working at The Willow Table.Finally, if you determine that Cooke breached one or more of the terms in the non-compete clause in her employment contract with Brandi’s Bistro, should the Bistro be awarded compensatory damages and injunctive relief sought by Brandi Albright?

  Feedbacks from the previous paper please look and don’t make mistakes again!!!!

paper 1 – Overall Feedback

Generally, a solid first FIRAC paper. I’ve posted edits, comments, and suggestions on your paper and in the scoring rubric, which I hope show you ways to strengthen your writing and your use of the model before you write the remaining FIRAC papers.

I’m curious — why did you also upload your outline? Are other instructors requiring this step? It shows that you created the outline at 3:56 PM and last modified it at 5:44 PM with 0 minutes of editing. I then checked the properties on your paper and it shows created at 5:43 PM (before you “finished” the outline) and last modified at 11:01 with 4 minutes of editing time. Can you explain?

Paper 2-

Overall Feedback

Although you seem to understand the legal rules and how they lead to both Daniels and the Bistro liable for Whitters’ injuries, your reasoning is not always clear. Try to use the rule/fact format more explicitly, as it should help you make sure that you have identified all the legal elements and the facts that support them so that you don’t equate negligence and negligence per se or omit discussion of proximate cause for neg per se and the dram shop claim.

My bigger concern is your use of an impermissible and seemingly non-existent reference. I have deducted 10 points, reducing your grade to 69%. In looking at the properties of your paper, it shows only 27 minutes of total editing time before you submitted it, which is also concerning.

As a consequence, your current score is tentative. Please contact me to explain your writing process and where/how you found this source.

I’ve also attached the rubric and the feedbacks from the previous papers. Please make sure the grade 100!!!

Struggling with your essay and deadlines?

Get this or a similar paper done in as fast as 4 hours, 24/7.

NB: We do not sell prewritten papers. All essays are written from scratch according to specific needs and instructions

✔Secure Service ✔ Plagiarism Free ✔On-time Delivery

WRITE MY PAPER