-
Principles of Contractual Liability -141Problem Solving Using
1RAC
What is IRAC?
IRAC is one of many possible approaches to answering legal
problems. You will meetIRAC or variations of it (eg MIRAT) in
Orientation, ALS and several other coursesthrough your degree. It
is a model that will help give basic structure to your answer
andgive you some guidance as to required content, but it is not the
only appropriateapproach. Over time, you will probably develop your
own approach to dealing with legalissues. This document gives you
some idea of our understanding of the appropriate useof the IRAC
model.
IRAC stands for: I - Issue;
R - Relevant law;
A - Application of the law to the facts;
C - Conclusion.
In legal practice, you start by ascertaining the material facts
of a (potential] dispute,usually through a client interview. In
exams, tutorials and some assignments in LawSchool you are given
the facts. There is no need to repeat them upfront (although
youwill need to refer to them when applying the law to the facts,
that is, when you get to the"A" in the "IRAC" model].
Issue
An issue is usually expressed as a legal question, properly
raised on the facts, eg Wasthere a valid contract? or Has the
contract been breached?
If the facts raise more than one issue, you should generally
identify the first logical issueand deal with it, reaching a
conclusion before turning to the next issue, and so on.
Thestructure is thus repeated: I1RAC, I2RAC, etc.
Within each major issue, there may be sub-issues, eg: Was there
a valid contract? [mainissue] To decide whether there was a valid
contract, it is necessary to decide whether therewas an offer
[sub-issue 1] and whether that offer was validly accepted
[sub-issue 2]. TheIRAC model can then be applied to each of these
sub-issues in turn, and this will lead toa conclusion on the main
issue.
You need to deal with all issues that are properly raised on the
facts, even if yourconclusion on one or some of those issues would
finalise the whole case. For example,where the validity of a
contract depends on the two sub-issues mentioned above, if
yourconclusion on the first sub-issue is that there was no offer,
there would be no contractand the second sub-issue would be
irrelevant. Despite this, you need to go on to dealwith the second
sub-issue. This can be done in a number of ways. In the example
given,
-
if your conclusion on the first sub-issue is that there was no
offer, you could move to thesecond sub-issue by stating, for
example, 'However, if I am wrong and it was found anoffer was mode,
the next issue is whether the offeree validly accepted that
offer.'
Relevant law
You need to state the relevant law applicable to the issue you
are discussing. You aregenerally permitted to paraphrase the
relevant law. However, you should retain'important' words and
otherwise ensure that relevant law is accurately stated. Youshould
also include the relevant case name(s] and/or statutory
provisionfs) asauthority. Always try to cite primary sources [cases
or statutes). No matter howconvenient or clever they may be,
textbooks, journal articles and your course notes orlecturer's
views are not binding on a court. At best, they may be persuasive
where theexisting legal authority is unclear or unsatisfactory. If
you do cite these secondarysources, you should explain why you
think a court would find them persuasive.
With more complex problems, it is seldom sufficient to refer to
a single relevant law. Itis more likely you will have to discuss a
combination of relevant laws, a list ofrequirements or elements,
exceptions to relevant laws, contradictory relevant laws andperhaps
even the principle behind the relevant laws, etc.
Unless specifically asked to do so, there is no requirement for
full case citations inexams or tutorials; but references must be
clear, so that there is no doubt to whichauthority you are
referring. Full citations (and appropriate pin point references)
areusually required in assignments.
Application/Arguments/Analysis
You should apply the relevant law/s to the facts you have been
given. This applicationstep should justify the conclusion you are
about to reach.
The "A" in "IRAC" does not only stand for Application. Where
there is more than onepossible argument, such as where your facts
support alternative arguments or wherethere are contradictory
cases, you should explain each Argument and also discuss
(i.e.Analyse) which one is stronger and why.
The facts may not fit into neat little boxes - for example, the
facts may not be the sameas the facts that gave rise to the
existing case law. Do not ignore this or let it frustrateyou. You
should discuss whether the facts are analogous to or
distinguishable from therelevant cases, and what difference this
might make to the outcome.
The "A" of "IRAC" is where students are usually weakest. You
should NOT assumemarker knowledge. You should be as transparent as
possible in your Application,pointing to the relevant facts as you
go. You should NOT condense your treatment of anissue into a simple
conclusion with an authority, eg Anne and Bill intended
thisarrangement to be legally binding [Todd v Nicof). Apart from
being misleading (by givingthe impression that the court in Todd v
Nicol actually decided Anne and Bill's case), it
-
skips the "A" of "IRAC". At least when dealing with important
issues, you should expandthis treatment so that you refer to the
relevant law in Todd v Nicol (R], citing the case asauthority;
discuss the reasoning in that decision as applied to the current
facts andinclude a discussion of any counter-arguments or contrary
cases (A]; and then reachyour conclusion (C).
Conclusion
At the end of your treatment of each issue, you should come to a
conclusion on thatissue, ie the likely result.
If there is more than one possible outcome, or you have doubts
about what conclusion acourt might reach, you should say so (but
you should have explained the reasons foryour doubt in your
Application/Arguments/Analysis - the "A" in the "IRAC" model].
You should, if necessary, also include an overall conclusion at
the end, so that you leaveyour reader with a clear picture of the
likely overall result.
USE IRAC AS A GUIDE, NOT A RIGID MASTER TO BE FOLLOWED LIKE A
SLAVE.
Here are some examples
Please note they do not represent 'model answers'. They merely
illustrate anapproach to answering the question.
Example One-an early attempt
Question: Mary knows that her friend, Ginger, has spent all her
money on shoesand needs cash for her weekly living expenses. Mary,
who is a known collector ofPrada handbags, has always loved
Ginger's Prada handbag. Mary tells Ginger thatshe will buy her
Prada handbag for $500. Ginger hesitates and then replies 'it
isworth a lot more than that! Is that the highest price you can
offer?' Ginger callsMary the next day and tells her that she agrees
to sell her Prada handbag to herfor $500. Mary does not wish to
proceed. Assume that Ginger had found out,through a mutual friend,
that Mary had purchased another Prada handbag justbefore calling
her. Advise Mary.
New students typically find it useful to use the IRAC steps as
headings. Here is anexample (but see the later comments on
improvements that could be made andexamples of those
improvements).
Issue - Is there a valid contract between Mary and Ginger for
the purchase of Ginger'sPrada handbag?
A valid contract requires: agreement [generally offer and
acceptance], certainty andcompleteness, intention to enter into
legal relations (IELR] and consideration. Thisquestion raises
issues with offer, acceptance and IELR.
-
Sub-Issue 1 - Did Marv make an offer?
Relevant law - An offer is an expression by one party (the
offeror) to the other party(the offeree) of a willingness to be
bound by certain terms if the other party is preparedto accept
those terms [Carlill). Whether a statement is an offer is tested
objectively[Carlill).
Application - Here, Mary's language is clear and explicit. When
viewed objectively, herstatement can be seen as a serious
commitment. There has been an expression by Maryto Ginger of a
willingness to be bound to purchase her Prada handbag for $500 if
Gingeris prepared to accept those terms.
Conclusion - It is likely that Mary has made an offer to
Ginger.
Sub-Issue 2 - Did Ginger reject Mary's offer?
Relevant law - Where an offeree introduces new terms, a
counter-offer has been madeterminating the original offer [Hyde v
Wrench, Butler v Ex-Cell-O). However, a mererequest for information
or inquiry relating to an alteration of terms is not a counteroffer
[Stephenson, Jacques). The relevant question is, how would the
reasonable personin Mary's position view the statement in all the
objective circumstances? [Powierzo],
Application - It is arguable that such a person would view the
statement as a mereprovision of information about the value of the
handbag and an inquiry relating to analteration of terms. No
reasonable person in Mary's shoes would understandGinger to be
intending to reject or make a counter-offer.
Conclusion - It is likely that Ginger has not rejected Mary's
offer, and the offer remainsopen for a reasonable period of
time.
Sub Issue 3 - Has Mary's offer been revoked?
Relevant law - An offer can be revoked at any time before
acceptance, but the revocationmust generally be communicated to the
offeree [Byrne v van T). This communicationneed not come from the
offeror. Once an offeree learns (presumably from a reliablesource)
that the offer has been revoked, there is no longer an offer
available foracceptance [Dickinson v Dodds).
Application - Ginger had learnt from a mutual friend (presumably
a reliable source) thatMary had purchased another Prada handbag.
Hearing that she has purchased anotherPrada handbag does not
necessarily communicate that she will not be purchasingGinger's
Prada handbag. This is especially the case here, as Mary is a
collector of Pradahandbags. Consequently, this case is
distinguishable from Dickinson v Dodds.
Conclusion - It is unlikely that there has been a valid
revocation. It is likely that the offeris still open for acceptance
by Ginger at the time she telephones Mary.
... [go on to deal with acceptance and IELR and provide an
overall conclusion]
-
Comments and improvements
1. You could improve your answer by taking the opportunity to
show anengagement with the relevant laws rather than just dropping
in the name of a case.You could do this by trying to describe the
important and most relevant cases in away that shows you have read
them and understood what they say. Sometimes thisonly takes another
sentence or two; but with complex cases it might require moretime
and effort.
Of course, you will not have time to describe every case you
cite. Unless they add weightto your argument, there is no need to
repeat the facts of a case you are citing. The factswill usually
only add weight to your argument where they illustrate well an
importantlegal argument you are making, or where they are analogous
to or distinguishable fromyour facts. In the example above, it
would have been be useful to set out briefly the factsof Dickinson
v Dodds, so as to properly explain how the facts in the question
can bedistinguished from that case.
2. Do not waste unnecessary time on non-issues or issues where
there is a clear orobvious answer. If the facts are incomplete in
some material respect, identify themissing facts and deal with
them. However, you should not waste time on non-material missing
facts. Here are some comments that illustrate these points.
Don't deal with non-issues, eg consideration: Our early answer
identified therequirements for a valid contract, including
consideration. But it did not go intoconsideration in any more
depth. This is because there was obviously validconsideration. To
mechanically go through all the requirements for a valid
contract,including those obviously satisfied on the given facts,
would be wasting valuable time.
Don't waste time on non-material missing facts, eg capacity: We
also know, that wherethe promisor does not have legal capacity, the
contract may, in certain circumstances, beset aside at the behest
of the party lacking legal capacity. We were not told how oldGinger
and Mary were. However, there is no need to invent this as an issue
- if theexaminer wanted you to discuss capacity, the question would
have told you, forexample, that one of the parties was only 17.
Since the problem is obviously about offer(including revocation},
acceptance and, perhaps, intention to enter legal relations,
wewould not describe age as a material fact. You wouldn't be wrong
if you brieflymentioned this, but when pressed for time (eg in an
exam} you will find that mentioningall potentially missing facts
will leave you with too little time to spend on the
importantissues.
Identify material missing facts, but don't make assumptions
about them - play the 'IF'game: Sometimes missing facts are
material in that they would make a difference to theissue you are
being asked to discuss. Our early answer identified that Ginger
hearing ofMary's recent Prada handbag purchase, did not necessarily
communicate to Ginger, thatMary would not also purchase her Prada
handbag from her. If it did not, she did not hearof 'a revocation'
from a third party. However, this will very much depend on
theevidence and how a reasonable person would have viewed the
information in thecircumstances. If we could say that Ginger
objectively knew that Mary was only lookingto purchase (or could
only afford) one Prada handbag at the time, then it is likely
that
-
Ginger, hearing of Mary's recent Prada handbag purchase from a
third party, would beviewed by a court as effective revocation. On
the facts you have been given, you shouldnot assume that the
revocation is not valid because you are not told about the
otherpossibly essential details. It may have been obvious to Ginger
that Mary was onlylooking to purchase one Prada handbag at the
time. Nor should you assume that this isan inessential detail. At
most, you have identified material facts that are
potentiallymissing. You should take the opportunity to show you can
identify such missing facts,but do not dwell on them. In our
problem, for example, you might cover bothpossibilities (what we
sometimes call playing the 'IF' game) by saying:
For there to be an effective revocation in this case, hearing of
the other handbagpurchase would have to lead a reasonable person in
Ginger's position tounderstand that Mary was "no longer minded" to
purchase Ginger's Pradahandbag. This will come down to the
evidence. IF we could say that it wasobjectively known to Ginger
that Mary was looking to purchase (or could afford)only one Prada
handbag, then it is likely that Ginger's hearing of her
buyinganother would be viewed by a court as an effective
revocation. IF this were notobjectively known to Ginger, then this
conclusion is unlikely, especially in light ofthe fact that Mary is
a collector of Prada handbags.
3. Try to identify and concentrate most of your time on the
issues that areproblematic or arguable rather than on the issues
that are straightforward. Whatfollows is a discussion of the
difference, and some examples of cutting down thetime spent on the
straightforward issues. However, note that while this technique
isparticularly prevalent in exams when students are short of time,
you should bewary of it. As pointed out when describing the "A"
of'TRAC", it does not cover the "A"in sufficient depth, so it
should be avoided when dealing with significant issues.
The first issue in our scenario is hardly problematic. If the
question had really wanted totest your understanding of the
requirements for a valid offer, it would have given you ascenario
in which Mary's first statement was arguably a puff, a request for
informationor an invitation to treat. The same, except to a lesser
extent, could be said of Ginger'sreply. The more likely problem
area is whether Mary's offer had been properly revoked.You should
therefore spend less time dealing with Mary's first statement and
Ginger'sreply, and more time dealing the purported revocation. One
technique for dealing, morequickly, with the less problematic
issues is to condense the RAG steps so that you dealwith them
together. Here are some examples.
Sub-Issue 1 - Did Mary make an offer?1
Mary has made an offer to Ginger [C]. Mary's statement is clear
and explicit and,when viewed objectively, can be seen as serious
commitment. She has expressed awillingness to be bound to purchase
the handbag from Ginger, for $500, if Gingerwas prepared to accept
those terms (Car////) [R&A].
Sub-Issue 2 - Did Ginger reject Mary's offer?2
1 Combining the Relevant Law, Application & Conclusion2
Combining the Relevant Law, Application & Conclusion
-
If Ginger had offered alternative terms [A], this could have
been a counter-offerterminating Mary's original offer [Hyde v
Wrench) [R&C]. However; Ginger'sstatement would be viewed by
the reasonable person in Mary's position, in all theobjective
circumstances [Powierza] [R&A], as the mere provision of
informationand an inquiry relating to an alteration of terms, and,
in this regard, is similar tothe statement made in [Stephenson,
Jacques) [RA&C]. No reasonable person inMary's shoes would
understand Ginger to be intending to reject or make
acounter-offer.
4. As you develop your skills, you will find that the "R" and
"A" of "IRAC" tend to getmixed together in various combinations.
Merely listing and explaining six differentcases in one section of
your answer; and then in a separate section going on toexplain the
relevance of each case to the facts of your problem, will be
repetitive andwill not be easy to read. Here are the common
solutions:
It might be better to state a relevant law (R) based on a case,
and explain how thatrelevant law would apply (A) to the facts of
your problem, and then go on to explain acounter-argument based on
another case (R) and the difference this might make to yourfirst
argument (A). Your structure often looks more like: I1-RARA...C1,
then the nextissue I2-RARA...C2.. It might be equally acceptable to
state and discuss a number ofcontradictory cases first, before
developing arguments based on them: ie I1-RRA...C1,then the next
issue I2-RRA...C2, etc.
5. As illustrated in our early answer, it might be useful to use
the IRAC steps as yourheadings to begin with. Once you are used to
the structure, however, you will find itfar more elegant to avoid
these headings. You should soon begin to use headingsthat are more
meaningful and intuitive to both you and your reader.
Example2 -a more developed approach
Consider the same question: Mary knows that her friend, Ginger,
has spent all hermoney on shoes and needs cash for her weekly
living expenses. Mary, who is aknown collector of Prada handbags,
has always loved Ginger's Prada handbag.Mary tells Ginger that she
will buy her Prada handbag for $500. Ginger hesitatesand then
replies 'it is worth a lot more than that! Is that the highest
price you canoffer?' Ginger calls Mary the next day and tells her
that she agrees to sell herPrada handbag to her for $500. Mary does
not wish to proceed. Assume thatGinger had found out, through a
mutual friend, that Mary had purchased anotherPrada handbag just
before calling her. Advise Mary.
Putting together what we have learnt so far, and avoiding
slavishly using the IRACsteps as headings, we might end up with
something like this. Note that the IRACstructure is still
discernible, but the answer flows logically from one point to
thenext.
This problem raises issues as to whether the statements made by
Mary and Gingerresult in a valid contract. Ginger will be the party
asserting the existence of the contract.Therefore, it will be for
Ginger to prove that there is an agreement (generally offer and
-
acceptance), intention to enter into legal relations (IELR),
sufficient certainty andcompleteness and consideration. The issues
in this problem are offer, acceptance and,perhaps, IELR.
Did Mary make an offer to Ginger to purchase her Prada
handbag?Mary has made an offer to Ginger. Mary's statement is clear
and explicit and, whenviewed objectively, can be seen as a serious
commitment. She expressed a willingness tobe bound to purchase the
handbag from Ginger, for $500, if Ginger was prepared toaccept
those terms [Carlill).
Did Ginger reject Mary's offer?If Ginger had offered alternative
terms, this could have been a counter-offer terminatingMary's
original offer [Hyde v Wrench). However, Ginger's statement would
be viewed bythe reasonable person in Mary's position, in all the
objective circumstances [Powierza),as the mere provision of
information and an inquiry relating to an alteration of terms,and,
in this regard, is similar to the statement made in [Stephenson,
Jacques]. Noreasonable person in Mary's shoes would understand
Ginger to be intending to reject orcounter-offer.
Has Mary's offer been revoked?An offer can be revoked at any
time before acceptance, but the revocation mustgenerally be
communicated to the offeree [Byrne v van T). Ginger hears of Mary's
otherpurchase just before her purported acceptance over the
telephone (see below foracceptance). Once an offeree learns
(presumably from a reliable source) that the offerhas been revoked,
there is no longer an offer available for acceptance [Dickinson
vDodds).
In Dickinson v Dodds, Dodds offered to sell a property to
Dickinson. Before hisacceptance, Dickinson heard, via a third
party, that the property had been sold. Thecourt held that there
had been an effective revocation as, at the time of the
purportedacceptance, Dickinson knew that Dodds was "no longer
minded" to sell. For there to bean effective revocation in this
case, hearing of the other handbag purchase would haveto lead a
reasonable person in Ginger's position to understand that Mary was
"no longerminded" to purchase Ginger's Prada handbag. This will
come down to the evidence. IFwe could say that it was objectively
known to Ginger that Mary was looking to purchase(or could afford)
only one Prada handbag, then it is likely that Ginger's hearing of
herbuying another would be viewed by a court as an effective
revocation. IF this were notobjectively known to Ginger, then this
conclusion is unlikely, especially in light of thefact that Mary is
a collector of Prada handbags.
... go on to deal with acceptance and, perhaps, IELR and provide
an overall conclusion.
Of course, the number of issues raised and their importance will
dictate how muchtime you dedicate to each issue. Here, offer
(including revocation), acceptance and,perhaps, intention, were the
only issues raised. If additional issues were raised, onemight have
needed to cut down the time spent on some issues to ensure the
otherissues were adequately dealt with.
-
Kylie Fletcher-JohnsonJanuary Semester, 2014
The content of this document draws largelyon a previous work
co-authored with Jay Forder
and such work is duly acknowledged.