Marketing assignment Research Paper - 825 Words

Marketing assignment (Research Paper Sample) Content: Marketing assignmentStudentà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s Name:Professorà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s Name:Course Title:Date:Marketing assignmentCritical Success FactorsBoutique hospitality in Ireland is one of the areas in which business opportunities exist and thus the need for a marketing plan for a hotel in Dublin. The success factors emanate from the vision and mission statements of the hotel as the workers will aim towards them. The objectives as well s goals remain vital as their achievement reflects the success of the marketing plan. Among the goals should be ensuring guests of the Dublin hotel receive the highest quality and value of services. The success factors also emanate from the positioning of the boutique hotel, as it needs to be strategically placed in terms of closeness to public amenities and access of major public places. Among the goals should be to be the best hotel services provider in Ireland in terms of quality, price, efficiency and satisfaction of customers.Size of Organizati onThe size of the hotel to be set up need to be reflected in its brand name as this s what sells or rather markets a new investor. The more the brand equity is known to the public and possible customers, then the more likely the achievement of the objectives as well as goals. For instance in this situation in Dublin, the name of the hotel need to be one known and well understood as this will increase its financial value. Security also needs to be adequate, and this is in proportion to the hotel size. Knowledge as well needs to be at the peak for purposes of increasing the hotel size and in relation to how the brand equity can be marketed and with regard to market shares and how profit margins of t e organisation, in this case the hotel in Dublin, can be doubled.Values and BeliefsThe values and believes of the proposed new hotel would be enshrined in the mission statement. Apart from these being summed up to make the mission statement, it is necessary for the management to ensure tha t all the workers are working towards upholding the organizational believes and values. Some of these values that the proposed new business should struggle to uphold are zero tolerance to low quality services, working with passion, ensuring that all the workers make very informed decisions, ensuring that the best workers are either hired or retained by the proposed new business, and having positive minds in all the operations. With these values being instilled in all the workers, the delivery of services to the customers will seldom be overlooked à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬ after all, it is the aim of the proposed new business to provide high value services to the customers.CostSetting up a boutique business is usually very cost intensive. By the fact that they are high luxury hotels, they incur a lot of costs to set up. The luxurious facilities in these hotels are usually very expensive. Also, the employees working in this hotel will require high level of qualifications which often require high le vels of compensation and high quality employee working conditions which are championed for by their very aggressive union known as the Services Industrial Professional and Technical Union.Ireland is one of the major high class tourist attraction centers thus the cost of hotels is not a major problem to these tourists. Also, the economic activities that are carried out in Ireland especially its capital, Dublin, are often welcoming to investors who often look for boutique hotels. Also, being the capital city of Ireland a country whose economic profile is on the rise, Dublin has a lot of economic potential. For these reasons, the economic situation of Dublin favors the business....

Describe A Memorandum On A Case Involving Bill Baker V. State - 2200 Words

Describe A Memorandum On A Case Involving Bill Baker V. State (Case Study Sample) Content: TITLE:STUDENTS NAME:COURSE:COURSE CODE:INSTITUTIONS NAME:DATE:Word count: 2200THE COOLEY LAW FIRM9445 CAMDEN FIELD PARKWAY # 222RIVERVIEW, FLORIDA 33578813-419-5100 (Main Office) 8137-358-2671 (Fax)________________________________________________________________________MEMORANDUMTO:FROM:RE:DATE:June 26, 2017________________________________________________________________________Issue StatementThe memorandum delves into the case of Bill Baker v. State where he was arrested for constructive possession of crack cocaine which is a controlled substance under Fla. Stat. 893.03 .The statements of the arresting officer, Bill Baker; the owner of the camp (Alan Arbour) will form the pillar of the analysis. According to Taylor v. State, 13 So. Be 77, 80 (Fla.1st DCA 2009)0 N.E.2d 324, constructive possession of cocaine refers to when an individual has control over the area where the illegal drug is present or there is someone else within the premises that were holding on to it o n their behalf. The leading question is whether the defendant is in violation of Fla. Stat. 893.03 with respect to the cracked cocaine found in the camp?Brief AnswerI believe that the charges against Bill Baker with respect to constructive possession of cracked cocaine are not sufficient to warrant a trial. In most cases constructive possession is often inferred from the behaviour and surroundings of the individuals. The jury can infer constructive possession when the items are found within the premises of the person arrested even when the home is shared by other people. The sharing of the home introduces the concept of joint possession in the case the drugs were in plain view.Furthermore, in constructive possession the state has an obligation of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the person being had knowledge of the drugs and had dominion over them. This is in reference to Frank V. State, 199 So. 2d 117 (Fla.App.1967), the defendant was convicted with two counts; the first one is unlawful possession of morphine and the second count is marijuana. In this case the state was unable to determine that Frank was guilty of all the charges and the courts reversed the judgement.Statement of factsBill BakerReviewing Bill Baker's statement he indicated that he was not in possession of the drug at the time. According to law, possession takes place when one has immediate control over the substance and has knowledge of the existence of the illegal drug. See Johnson v. State, 456 So. 2d 923, 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). In this case, based on the testimony presented by Bill Baker, it is clear that he did not have actual possession of cocaine. Therefore, our focus is tuned towards establishing whether he had a constructive possession of cocaine. The most pertinent aspect of constructive possession is that the individual, in this case Bill Baker, had knowledge of the existence of the drug and an ounce of control over it.At the camp, one of the Connie, Bill Bakers girlfriend played loud music that caused the neighbouring people to call the police. When Bill saw the squad car according to his statement, he went to turn down the volume. Bill believed that the noise was what had attracted the police and with Alan, the owner of the camp, shouting for someone to turn down the music he was just doing what he deemed to be right in this situation.The fact that Bill Baker was in proximity to the area where the contraband was found is not enough to claim constructive possession but when coupled up with other factors does strengthen the case. The case does simulate to Taylor v. State, 31 So.2d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) were the defendants proximity with the marijuana which was in plain sight was termed as insufficient evidence to necessitate a conviction.In the case of Metzger v. State, 395 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), the defendant was acquitted of the charges of possession on the fact that they were a guest hence they had no control over the premises. In the Bil l Baker case he was an invited guest to the cabin his proximity to the area where the cocaine was found in the cabin does not indicate that he had knowledge of the existence of the drug.Allen ArbourWhen reviewing the testimony presented by Alan Arbour, the evidence does re-route to Connie as the culpable culprit. Alan stated that Bill Bakers girlfriend, Connie, was a troublemaker and smoked a lot of weed. The fact that she had access to the weed clearly increases the possibility she had the cocaine . Allen indicates that when the police officer asked if there were any drugs in the cabin they all said no but he did not hear Connies response.Furthermore, Allen asserts that when the police entered into the cabin they were told to walk outside which they did. The police officer later came out with a bag of rocks, which he stated to have found it in the cabin. Allen concludes his statement by saying he had not seen the item in his life.In this case, because the officers apprehended Bil l Baker outside the room where the cocaine was found, the state has the responsibility of establishing that the suspect had constructive possession of the cocaine. See State v Reese, 774 So. 2d 948, 94,-50 (Fla.5th DCA 2001).The case of Reese was that when the S.W.A.T team entered the room they found her standing at the door. She was not in close proximity to the area where the drugs were found. As the room was shared holding her solely responsible for the drugs weakened the case. In other words, the state needs to clearly show that Bill Baker he had knowledge of the existence of the contraband, the ability to exercise control and dominion over the cocaine.Arresting OfficerThe arresting officer in this case stated that he was informed that there was a lot of noise from the cabin and he came to investigate. The officer saw someone place something in the cabinet but what instigated is curiosity to the existence of drugs in the camp was the smell of Marijuana. The visitors in the camp stated that they were not smoking when asked if they had drugs and allowed the police officer to investigate the premises. The fact that they allowed the police officer willingly to enter the premises nullified the need for a warrant to be acquired by the police officer. It therefore means that anything incriminating evidence found in the cabin is admissible in the court of law.The police on further investigation found the cocaine in the cabin where the suspect, Bill Baker, was seen to place something before they were asked to move out. The presence of cocaine in the house and the nervousness of Bill Barker was an indication that he had an idea of the presence of the drugs. This is in sufficient evidence with respect to United States v. Holland, 445 F.2d 701 (D.C. Cir.1971) case, in this case the state was unable to prove that the defendant had dominion over the contraband on the aspect that the drugs were found in the dresser where he took his clothing from. The apartment was the w omans and not the defendant and by preview of accessing something from it does not mean that they had dominion over the contraband.Furthermore, based on the evidence discovered we can also presume that Bill Baker was in possession with an intention to supply to his fellow cabins. The presence of additional zip lock bags in his pocket can be inferred to mean that he wanted to divide the cocaine and sell to his fellow cabins.DiscussionBased on the statement provided by the arresting officer, Bill Baker was arrested because he appeared nervous when the police officers came out with the cocaine from the cabin. His nervousness made him a more likely suspect compared with the other cabin occupants an aspect that led the police to arrest him. Afterwards, they patted him and found him in possession of the zip lock bags this is an error in the occurrence of events.In the Rangel v. State, 110 So. 3d 41 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013, Rangel was an occupant of a vehicle that had other members. The sergeant charged Rangel only based on the fact that he was in close proximity to the container that had drugs. Charging only one individual was not sufficient to prove constructive possession. In the case of Bill Baker, the arresting police charging only Baker on constructive possession while other occupants were in the premises do not prove that he had the ability to exercise control over the drugs. See Watson V. State, 1116, 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) in this case Watson was caught in close proximity with weapons, the state was unable to provide independent proof that he either knew or had control over them.Secondly, the police officer did not test the cocaine zip lock bags to clearly prove that Bill Baker was in deed in possession of the illegal drugs. This coupled with the statement that Connie; Bills girlfriend smoked marijuana weakens the case that Bill Baker could have been the one in possession of the cocaine. There is a possibility that he decided to hide the drug with an aim of protecting his girlfriend from being arrested. Therefore, suing him for possession of cocaine will be a harsh trial.In evaluation of the entire case study, the evidence that Bill Baker was in possession of cocaine is not enough to warrant a trial. Apart from the zip lock bags found in his possession, the rest of the evidence presented by the officer is subjective. Th...