Regulatory and Risk Management Issues Arising in the Context of Experiential Entrepreneurship Education

Abstract

The Start a Business Assignment forms part of the experiential entrepreneurship curriculum in numerous universities. A lack of awareness of potential liabilities can create liability for students and the university from problems arising while operating businesses. Losses or damages potentially arise from both regulatory infractions and potential injuries to third parties. A lack of knowledge and understanding of the legal obligations imposed upon business operations threatens the learning experience. This article seeks to identify liability risks to the universities and faculty that can result from an improperly planned and supervised Start a Business Assignment. A clearer understanding of the legal issues that can arise will be helpful in supporting the safe growth and ongoing health of experiential entrepreneurship programming. Our aim is to support experiential entrepreneurship learning by concluding with a suggestion as to how these assignments can be managed in a manner that minimizes associated risks and adds to the student experience. Many of the legal principles have broad application, but it is critical to recognize that each city, state, and country's laws and their interpretation thereof may vary. Furthermore, the unique parameters of each Start a Business Assignment will affect the risks arising from regulatory and legal compliance.

Keywords

experiential education law liability legal regulatory

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ataner

(2006) How strict is vicarious liability? Reassessing the enterprise risk theory. University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review 64(85): 66–102.

Bradshaw v Rawlings, 612 F.2d 135 (3d Cir, December 17, 1979).

Cornwall J. (2012). Learning by launching. The Entrepreneurship Educator. Retrieved from http://www.planningshop.com.

Daly

S. P.

(2001) Student-operated internet businesses: True experiential learning in entrepreneurship and retail management. Journal of Marketing Education 23(3): 204–215.

Furek v. University of Delaware, 594 A. 2d. 506, 522-523 (Del.1991).

Jans v. Ducks Unlimited Canada, (2008) 10 Western Weekly Reports, 415.

Kiplinger

J. W.

(2006) Defining off-campus misconduct that “Impacts the Mission”: A New Approach. University of St. Thomas Law Journal 4(1): 86–113.

McClure v. Fairfield University, LEXIS 1778, (Conn. Super. Ct. 2003).

Mandel

Noyes

(2016) “Survey of experiential entrepreneurship education offerings among top undergraduate entrepreneurship programs”. Education & Training v58 n2: 154–178.

10.

Menzies

T. V.

(2009) Entrepreneurship and the Canadian Universities: Report of a national study of entrepreneurship education, St. Catherines, Canada: Brock University.

11.

Wharton, R. L., & Potter, P. (2003). Does entrepreneurship education make a difference? Changing students' orientations towards risk, ambiguity and control. Paper presented at the United States Association of Small Business and Entrepreneurship 2003 Conference Proceedings.