MAKE A FACT AND LINK TO THEORY HOW DOES IT LINK TO THE THEORY. THIS IS KEY. You need to back the fact up with theory always make links to one another. It is a case study, there are 4 sections I have attached the four sections as a document. I have also attached a document where I have done everything for you the layout what to talk about PLEASE FOLLOW THAT AND USE THAT. You can go in deeper with the references and do wider reading but please use that template and all the information in it. It is uploaded as ‘Assignment 1’. When writing please make sure: Shows a sound understanding of the demands of the question/topic. Identifies the main implications of the questions/topic and considers it from more than one angle. Is always relevant. Shows a sound understanding of major concepts and the ability to describe and analyse them critically. Develops arguments logically and clearly. Evaluates arguments and evidence from reading and experience and provides convincing reasons for conclusion reached. Often manages to relate theory to practice where appropriate. Shows evidence of a range of relevant and critical reading. Supports points with examples drawn from reading, research and experience where relevant. Ability to summarise information gathered from several types of source. Clear overall structure to a more complex assignment than level 1. Arguments are developed and linked in a logical and well-organised manner. Clearly answers question/focuses on topic. Understands wider implications of question/topic and considers it from several angles. Is always relevant to the question/topic. Is somewhat individual or original in how it deals with the assignment and offers some of the student’s own ideas. Shows a deep understanding of major concepts. Analyse concepts and issues carefully and critically and has some ability to question ‘received opinion’ where appropriate. Develops arguments concisely and persuasively. Provides clear criteria for evaluations made and conclusions reached. Consistently and effectively relates theory to practice where appropriate. Shows evidence of wide and critical reading and/or the ability to incorporate data from own (limited) research or that of others where relevant. Supports points with particularly well-chosen examples drawn from research and experience. Shows outstanding ability to summarise and also synthesise information gathered in a variety of ways. There is a very clear overall structure to an assignment which is more complex in organisation than level 1. The structure is indicated to the reader by devices such as good paragraphing and discourse markers. Complex arguments are developed logically and systematically. There is only case study Charlotte and William and I’ve broken it down into five documents over 5 days. But it is ONLY ONE case study. Make a fact and link it to theory I will send you a reference list and all the lecture slides. I’ve uploaded ‘Assignment 1’ it has all the information on there. You need to use that.
Michigan Prosecuting Attorney Associations (2008). Loss Rights. Recuperated July 20, 2009 from http://www.michiganprosecutor.org/Victim.htm Michigan State Police (2009). Injurious conduct at home Awareness. Recuperated July 20, 2009 from http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1589_1711_4577 - ,00.html Women Web (2009). Injurious conduct at home, The Effect of Abuse. Recuperated July 25, 2009 from http://www.womensweb.ca/ruthlessness/dv/effects.php Women Web (2009). Injurious conduct at home, Getting Help. Recuperated July 25, 2009 from http://www.womensweb.ca/ruthlessness/dv/help.php.  EWHC 1190 (Admin), 19 May 2017 Sir Wyn Williams The High Court has held that a neighborhood specialist had not been qualified for return to or pull back their choice that the petitioner was qualified for vagrancy help under Pt 7, Housing Act 1996. The specialist had, in substance, settled on a ultimate conclusion with regards to the obligation owed to the petitioner, despite the way that they had made a neighborhood association referral. The confirmation did not build up that a "basic slip-up of reality" had been made which would have qualified them for return to that choice and, besides, the expert had neglected to give motivations to legitimize doing as such. Alice Richardson of Arden Chambers showed up for the inquirer. Presentation The inquirer, a 31-year-old Romanian national, moved to the UK for work in October 2013. In September 2015, while on vacation in Romania, he was associated with a genuine auto crash which left him wheelchair-bound and unfit to work. In August 2016, he connected as destitute to Waltham Forest LBC who concluded that he was not qualified for help under s.185, Housing Act 1996. In December 2016, the petitioner made a new application to the litigant specialist. On January 30, 2017, the litigant acknowledged that the inquirer was destitute, qualified for help, in need require and not purposefully destitute but rather found that he didn't have a nearby association with its region yet had a neighborhood association with Waltham Forest. The respondent alluded the inquirer's application to Waltham Forest LBC, as per s.198, 1996 Act. On February 8, 2017, the respondent prompted the inquirer that Waltham Forest LBC had declined to acknowledge the referral on the premise that he was not qualified for help. The respondent likewise exhorted him that the referral had been pulled back. On February 10, 2017, the petitioner was issued with a new s.184 choice letter advising him that he was not qualified for vagrancy help. The Claim The petitioner looked for legal audit on three grounds. (1) The disavowal of the choice of January 30, 2017, was ultra vires. The litigant had finished its enquiries and settled on an official choice which was great to him. The litigant was not qualified for return to that choice. Specifically, the respondent's dependence on Porteous v West Dorset DC  HLR 30, CA, was mixed up on the grounds that the litigant was not able recognize a reality about which it had been mixed up. (2) The litigant had neglected to give motivations to the renouncement. (3) The litigant was in rupture of s.200(1) in neglecting to secure settlement pending the result of the referral. The claim was recorded as a facilitated "moved up" authorization and substantive hearing. The litigant restricted authorization, depending on R v Brent LBC ex p Sadiq (2001) 33 HLR 47, QB, on the premise that the petitioner had an elective cure by method for statutory audit and region court request under ss.202-204. In connection to ground 1, the respondent contended that it had not settled on an official choice on the grounds that there had been a neighborhood association referral and in this manner, applying Crawley BC v B (2000) 32 HLR 636, CA, it was qualified for return to the choice. In the option, the respondent had committed a basic error of reality and, applying Porteous, it had been qualified for pull back the choice. The Decision The judge held that the court holds a lingering circumspection to engage a case for legal audit even where elective cures are accessible. The interests of equity for the situation and the requirement for productive transfer of lawful question directed firmly toward the conclusion that authorization ought to be conceded. Crawley BC v B gives wide help to the suggestion that a neighborhood expert is qualified for return to a choice which has been conveyed to a candidate for lodging help with conditions where either (an) it has not finished its enquiries under s.184 of the Act, or (b) it has settled on no official conclusion with regards to the idea of the obligation it owes to a candidate. Nonetheless, for this situation plainly the respondent had finished its enquiries and that the litigant had settled on a choice as to its obligation under the Act. As the High Court held in R v Southwark LBC ex p Dagou (1996) 28 HLR 72, QB, a neighborhood association referral was basically "an executional execution of a full lodging obligation" and the respondent had, in substance, settled on a ultimate conclusion with regards to the obligation owed. The confirmation did not set up an essential misstep of certainty with respect to the respondent which had driven it to its choice of January 30, 2017. Decency requested that the litigant was under an obligation to give motivations to legitimize its view that it was qualified for settle on the choice conveyed in the letter of February 10, 2017, and it had neglected to do as such. The Defendant had owed the obligation under s.200(1) of the Act from January 30, 2017, and kept on owing that obligation until the point when determination of the referral issue. MGMT-4001-Section 1 Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited Strategic Analysis Organization Overview Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited is a retail firm in Canada that offers an extensive variety of items including home items, games and relaxation extras, and car items. Some of the stores keep running by the organization likewise offer nourishment items and toys. The primary retail activities keep running by the organization include: Canadian Tire, which is the center business and runs vehicle repair carports in all stores; at that point there is the Canadian Tire Petroleum; PartSource, which has some expertise in the offer of extras and extra parts for vehicles a garments retailer known as Mark's; FGL Sports, then again, runs stores that retail sportswear and general donning merchandise. The organization's central command are in Toronto, Ontario. (wikipedia.org, 2018) The organization runs various divisions the greatest being the Canadian Tire Retail that takes part in the offer of an extensive variety of stock including vehicle parts and frill, housewares, and brandishing merchandise. The organization likewise runs an online store that was propelled in 2000. Through the online stage, clients can arrange their favored products online after which they are conveyed to them. PatSource is another division of the organization that has some expertise in the retail of car parts in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and Nova Scotia. The organization additionally runs a money related administrations division that works the Canadian Tire Bank. Different divisions incorporate Canadian Tire Petroleum, Mark's, FGL Sports Ltd, and Nelly Hansen (wikipedia.org, 2018) Canadian Tire Corporation Mission and Vision The organization's present mission is to guarantee clients, workers and investors' lives are enhanced by the administrations offered by advancing dynamic lives and solid living through its games items retail business, and the offering of significant worth in all items including clothing, vehicle parts, and monetary administrations. The organization's vision is to keep up advancement and development in the entirety of its organizations by accomplishing incredible outcomes and impacting individuals in numerous positive ways every day (Diana's E-Portfolio, 2014). Canadian Tire Strategic Objectives 1. Achievement of feasible development through the reinforcing of the organization's brands and the improvement of the client encounter by extending internet business and upgrade of the brilliant store arrange (CTC, 2018) >GET ANSWER