We write law books using the IRAC method. We deliver the content of your course in the way you are expected to answer your questions. Have a look at the work exampled below. Then have a look at both the Core books and the Q&A law books.
IRAC METHOD EXAMPLE
WHAT IS IRAC METHOD?
IRAC is an acronym which stands for the “Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion” (IRAC). You may structure your answer to any law problem question or essay topic using the IRAC method. The issue, rule, analysis, and conclusion (IRAC) make up the fundamental framework used by law students around the world. You may be confident that your answer is comprehensive if you use this straightforward approach for constructing it. Other methods exist such as Celo and the FACT LAW SANDWICH. Choose the one that works for you.
IRAC METHOD EXAMPLE
How do I use the IRAC method? There is no point in talking about applying IRAC unless we show you how it works. Let use this excerpt of a contact law, problem question, from a law past paper to show you a IRAC Method example: “Michael promises to sell his 3 year old BMW car to Chithra for £100.00 as he has recently won a new expensive car in a competition”.
IRAC METOD - ISSUE
Your answer should start by addressing the problem that is raised in the essay topic or the issue in the problem question, these are easy to spot in a problem because the facts of the cases you have studied (where the principle emerges) is to be applied will be similar to the facts in your problem scenario. Thus there are occasions when the question itself will supply the problem for you to solve. If this is not the case, the next question to ask is: What is the legal issue that, once answered, will decide the outcome of the case? It is recommended that the issue be posed in the form of a question, and that the inquiry be specific rather than generic.
How do you write a IRAC example? So using our example above the question that needs to be asked is: “Is Michael contractually obliged to provide the BMW car to Chithra for £100.00?” This is the legal issue and this is ultimately the advice Michael is looking for. We can refine that question even further to demonstrate being specific. Thus the question is: was there sufficient consideration and can Chithra bring an action against Michael for this promise?
IRAC METOD - RULE
The rule explains whether statute or case law guideline is relevant to the matter at hand. Instead of stating the rule as a conclusion to the specific instance that is being discussed, the rule needs to be articulated as a universal principle.
For example in Michael’s case of the BMW, consideration must be sufficient. It can range from some form of payment to other interests of value under the law. Consideration must also be ‘adequate’, in terms of a bargain being made, although it is not imperative. Sufficiency remains of prime importance when forming a contract.
IRAC METOD - ANALYSIS
Your analysis is both the most crucial and the most time-consuming component of your answer. This will includes adapting the Rule to the specific details of the issue or situation Michael is facing. You need to do this. Apply this information to demonstrate how the rule may be used to get the conclusion. When it is feasible to do so, discuss the situation from both perspectives. You have to predict what Chithra’s lawyers will argue. It is essential that you do not only assert a conclusion but also provide the grounds that support it. If you reach a conclusion without providing any supporting evidence or rationale, it indicates that you have not applied the principle and considered the relevant facts in your analysis of the problem. A helpful hint for your discourse is that you may use the rule as a guide.
For Michael’s example a case the authority establishing this principle is Thomas v Thomas, where the court held that as long as there is valid consideration. Under the authority of Currie v Misa then the agreement has some benefit or detriment to the parties. Furthermore in Chappel v Nestle, the courts stated the chocolate wrappers constituted purported consideration. It was held that the offer Nestle made for the exchange of chocolate wrappers provided that they were of some value.
IRAC METOD - CONCLUSION
After considering the position of the law you have to apply it to the scenario. Your solution to the problem is presented in the conclusion. This is the advice that Michael wants! Please share the findings of your assessment. As a rule of practice always give the bad news first and then the good news because then you can give them your bill.
For example in advice to Michael, if Michael promised to sell his 3 year old BMW to Chithra for £100, this may not be the market value of the car. However, the £100 will still be deemed to be of some value, hence valid consideration, making the promise to sell the car enforceable by Chithra. Any attack on the enforceability of the contract could be based around there was never any intention to create legal relations.
THE FINISHED ADVICE
This is how the advice will read:
Michael’s promise to sell the BMW
Michael promised to sell his 3 year old BMW car to Chithra for £100.00 as he won a new expensive car. The question is: was there sufficient consideration and can Chithra bring an action against Michael for this promise? Consideration must be sufficient. It can range from some form of payment to other interests of value under the law. Consideration must also be ‘adequate’, in terms of a bargain being made, although it is not imperative. Sufficiency remains of prime importance when forming a contract. A case authority establishing this principle is Thomas v Thomas, [1] where the court held that as long as there is valid consideration under the authority of Currie v Misa [2] then the agreement has some benefit or detriment to the parties. Furthermore in Chappel v Nestle, [3] the courts stated the chocolate wrappers purported consideration. It was held that the offer Nestle made for the exchange of chocolate wrappers provided that they were of some value. In advice to Michael, if Michael promised to sell his 3 year old BMW to Chithra for £100, this may not be the market value of the car. However, the £100 will still be deemed to be of some value, hence valid consideration, making the promise to sell the car enforceable by Chithra.
[1](1842) 2 Q.B. 851 [2]ibid [3] [1960] A.C. 87
IF YOU NEED LAW TUITION OR HELP WITH LAW ESSAY WRITING GET IN TOUCH
