BUS 2311 Case Study #1 (Spring 2024): Question: Mae Correia owns her own restaurant \"Rich and Star\" in the town of Sylvan Lake. They offer high-dining type meals constructed by their chef, Adelyn Rivers. Adelyn keeps all her recipes, greations and ideas in a journal that she leaves in Mae's office in the safe Adelyn prides herself on her inventive creations and is concermned about anyone stealing her journal as she has more than 3 years of creations logged in the journal. Mae also wants to keep the journal safe as if the journal is lost or taken, Adelyn will no longer be able to reference her creations and recipes and Adelyn has told Mae that if anyone takes, uses or loses that journal, she would be forced to leave the restaurant. Mae knows she won't get another chef like Adelyn so she guards the journal. On May 5, 2024, one of the sous-chefs Luelle Codee came up to Mae iritated that she had to work on the May long weekend. Mae told Luelle that Luelle did not book it off and she had to book her in as Adelyn was going to be away on the Saturday and Sunday. Luelle got so angry with Mae that she began yelling and screaming at her. Luelle then punched Mae in the face. Luelle saw Adelyn's journal in the safe in Mae's office and took it, advising Mae that she will never see it again. As expected, Adelyn is beside herself about the journal of her recipes and is threatening to quit unless Mae gets it back. Mae has also sustained severe eye and nose trauma from the punch in the face and is unable to work and operate the business so she has to hire a manager to look after the business while she is away. Sylvan Lake is a small town and news has spread around the community and throughout Alberta, no thanks to Luelle posting on Facebook about \"Rich and Star\" being full of mice and ants in their Kitchen. Adelyn refuses to speak to Luelle regarding her journal but wants it back. Mae has requested the journal back via email to Luelle but has not received any communication Mae is talking to you about this situation prior to hiring a lawyer. What tort or torts do you recommend that Mae sues Luelle in? Why? As the journal is one of a kind and is not Mae's journal does that change your answer? Explain. margins, and no longer than 4 pages 1.5 spaced (one page will likely be take up with the Chat GPT question and answer) Rubric: Followed 0 not all parts 1 All parts of Instructions: included, missing at the assignment All requirements (your question, Chat least one part (e.g. your initial question included adequately and response provided from the internet, and/or outside issues raised, or did not do an in GPT response, to Chat GPT, or the accurately. analysis, and Chat GPT response). corrected answer) included with submission. Analysis: 0 - poor analysis, did | 1: Adequate 2: Excellent Thorough analysis of | not correctly identify | response. Could response the Chat GPT the law (as stated in | use some more thoughtfully response, and the textbook and analysis, and critiqued the appropriately pointed | discussed in class). | either did not issues with the outany errors inthe | Relied on information | cover all potential | Chat GPT response, in line with Alberta law, Provided a corrected version of the answer, taking into consideration any issues with Chat Use Chat GPT to input the above guestion. In a word document, include your question to Chat GPT and the response provided. Then analyze the response provided by Chat GPT and the information covered in this class. Discuss what parts of the Chat GPT response are good, and which parts need to be revised, then make any revisions required to the response and provide your final response to the question for grading Both your analysis and correction of the Chat GPT response are what will be graded. Submissions should include student name and number, course name and number, and instructor name. Please do not use a litle page. Submissions should be approximately 3-4 pages 1.5 spaced at 12 pt font using Ariel or Times New Roman and with Linch GPT's response corrected version_or did not make necessary corrections fo the response in line with Alberta law. were adequate but response is still lacking. Could use more explanation, detail, or clarity. sources that are depth analysis of | the textbook, and clearly not applicable | the issues. any other and not supported by material. in class material. Correction: 0 - did not provide a | 1: Corrections 2: Excellent corrected version clear, thoughtful, accurate