One of the most important objectives of the course is developing your critical thinking and reasoning skills. This will be primarily accomplished through the use of the IRAC method of analysis for solving the cases presented to you in homework problems and exams.
IRAC is an acronym that stands for:
• Issue
• Rule
• Application
• Conclusion
Most homework problems and exam questions will consist of a given scenario of facts (the fact pattern), where you will be asked to suggest a likely outcome if the case went to court. You will arrive at that likely outcome by analyzing the facts using the IRAC method of case analysis.
The first step is to identify the legal cause(s) of action that would likely be put before a court. (Issue)
Next would be to identify the relevant law (or different elements of the law) that need to be examined in order to decide if the action in the issue would likely be upheld by the court or not. (Rule(s))
Each rule (or element) is then applied to the facts of the case given in the scenario, to determine if the requirement of this rule/element is satisfied or not. (Application(s))
Finally, you will suggest how a court would most likely rule on the outcome based upon your application(s) of each rule/element(s). You should include: an answer to the question that you framed in your issue; a very brief summary of your applications and any remedies that the court would be likely to award (or not), along with any possible defenses to liability that could be put forward. (Conclusion)
Note that sometimes there could be more than one Issue that arises from one fact pattern. In such a case it is probably better to analyze each Issue separately.
All this may seem pretty complicated at this stage. However, your lectures will continually explain what is required, but refer back to this document regularly. In addition, the homework problems will give you ample opportunity for practicing this method. In addition, more detailed information on this method of analysis will be posted on iLearn during the course of the semester. In the meantime, take a look at the following example:
Model Question/Solution with IRAC Method Application
Dan is out hiking in the countryside one day in an area that is popular for this pastime. On consulting his map he sees that by cutting across two fields to the side of the path that he is on, he can save 5km in getting to his destination. The fields are owned by Joe and are surrounded by a fence. Dan discovers a gate in the fence which is locked and bears a sign which clearly states that the land is private property. Dan has been walking for a long time and is starting to feel very tired so he decides to walk across the fields. He breaks the lock and goes into the field. He has only gone a short way when he steps in a hole and twists his ankle. While Dan is on the ground in considerable pain and unable to walk properly, George comes along the path in his car and sees Dan in difficulty. He stops his car and goes through the gate to help Dan. Just at that point, Joe arrives and discovers Dan and George on his land. Joe decides to bring legal action against Dan and George. How is the court likely to resolve this? Explain using the IRAC method of case analysis.
Solution
Issue: Are Dan and George likely to be found liable for the tort of trespass to land arising from them entering Joe’s field without his permission? – (the ‘tort of trespass’ is the legal cause of action – note that the issue is not just a repetition of facts or the question that is posed to you).
Rule1: The tort of trespass to land occurs any time a person intentionally enters onto, above or below the surface of land that is owned by another; or remains on the land or permits anything to remain on it, without permission.
Application1: Both Dan and George intentionally entered the land in question without permission from Joe. Thus, they appear to have trespassed.
Rule2: Before a person can be a trespasser, the real property owner must establish that person as a trespasser. For example, “posted” trespass signs clearly establish as a trespasser a person who ignores these signs.
Application2: In this case Joe had posted clear warnings that the land is private on the gate to his field and both Dan and George had ignored these signs and entered onto Joe’s property and so are established as trespassers.
Conclusion: Normally, both Dan and George would be held liable for the tort of trespass to land as they both ignored the warning signs and entered Joe’s property without permission. The court would likely award the value of the broken lock and, perhaps, other unspecified amount for compensatory damages. However, George has a legal defense available. When a trespasser enters to assist someone in danger a defense exists. Here, it can be argued that Dan was in danger when he was lying on the ground unable to walk and George entered the property in order to assist him. George would likely be excused from his liability for trespass.
NOTES ON IRAC METHOD
Remember that you are writing for a person who does not know anything about the Law and so you need to explain each Rule/Element so that your reader can understand exactly what needs to be proved in order to satisfy the rule – simply putting the name of a rule as you may find it in a textbook is not enough.
When applying each rule/element, you need to only include enough information from the facts to determine if the requirement of that rule/element has been met or not – avoid copying large chunks of the facts as they have been given to you. Also, state categorically whether you believe that the information meets the requirement or not – or, occasionally, that it is not clear or that there is not enough information to decide one way or the other.
When writing a conclusion to a case, first answer the question that you framed in the issue - you will normally have enough information to decide if a court would be likely to find a defendant liable or not. You should include a brief summary of your applications so that a reader could understand the reasons for your decision even without seeing your complete ‘Rule/Application’ analysis. The conclusion should also tell the reader what the court is likely to decide should happen now in order to “put right the wrong”– after all, the only reason for bringing the case is to have one’s rights under the law enforced! Remedies may consist of some kind of monetary damages as compensation (court of law) or some kind of action which ensures “fairness” (court of equity). You will learn more about remedies as the course progresses.
One problem that students often face is that sometimes a particular Law needs to be broken down into separate Rules/Elements. Many textbooks (and accompanying slides) often give a law as one sentence, but on closer examination we may find that even a short sentence can contain multiple ideas. For example, the textbook (and PowerPoint slide) for this course tells us that False Imprisonment is: “The intentional confinement or restraint of another person’s movement without justification”. However, if we examine this sentence we find that there are 3 distinct elements that need to be proved to establish False Imprisonment:
- The defendant has confined a person or restrained a person’s movement.
- The defendant must have confined the plaintiff with the intent to do so.
- The confinement must have been without justification.
Similarly, the book may breakdown a law into elements, but then some of these elements may need further breakdown in order to decide if the requirement of the law has been met. For example, the book informs us that in order to succeed in a negligence action a plaintiff must prove – Duty of care; Breach of duty; Causation; Damages. However, on further reading we find that in order to determine if the requirement of “Causation” has been met, the court must address two questions: - Is there causation in fact?
- Was the defendant’s act the proximate or legal cause of the injury?
It follows then that it would be sensible to consider these two questions as separate Rules/Elements of the tort of Negligence.
As a general rule, it makes more sense to analyze more elements rather than fewer in order to achieve clarity of both thinking and presentation.
As we get further along in the course we will find that sometimes Rules have exceptions that may change the outcome of what would normally happen. In all such cases, it is important to first state the normal rule and apply it, before examining the exception. Also in such cases, the conclusion would require you to present the normal outcome by applying the original rule/application and then any change in outcome brought about by applying the exception.
Any IRAC analysis should consider an element of “Damages”. Simply expressed; if there is no harm, loss, injury or damage, then there is really no case to be brought to court.
Sample Solution