Overview
Background
The IRAC method is an analytical tool used to examine and arguably resolve complex legal situations and is the method in which most courts write decisions.
I = Issue
R = Rule(s)
A = Analysis / Application
C = Conclusion
My emphasis is on the Analysis portion. Provided you identified the Issue and the correct Rule(s) that apply to the fact pattern, your analysis is the critical thinking portion this assignment stresses. Your Conclusion is not important, although you must arrive at a conclusion. There will always be differing conclusions despite applying the same rule to the same fact pattern answering the same issue. That is law for you - our adversarial legal system. We are not always provided with all the facts that we would like to reach the "perfect" conclusion. Utilize the facts the best you can.
Issue
What is the legal issue or question raised by the facts of a case/problem. Said in another way, what is the legal issue or question the court (you) are trying to answer? Often, you are provided with the legal issue. Sometimes, you need to formulate your own. For instance, some questions ask at the end: "How should the court decide this case?" Of course, that is the general question of every single case ever tried in court. It isn't specific enough. Instead, a more specific way to state the issue might be, for instance, "Did the plaintiff breach the contract?"
Rule
State and explain or define the law or rule that applies to this case. For instance, it might look something like this: "Battery is the intentional, offensive, unwanted physical touching of another." In this section, you do not discuss the facts of the case - you just state the rule that would apply in any case involving this particular issue you identified.
Application/Analysis
Here you apply the rule you've identified above to the unique facts to reach a conclusion. Said another way, you analyze the facts according to the law to reach a conclusion. There are always two sides to each case. While sometimes one side has a much stronger argument than the other, and obviously the court will decide the case based on the strongest argument, that does not mean the other's argument is necessarily invalid. This means that, assuming you've identified the correct issue and rule, your conclusion will usually not be "wrong." Others may not agree with it, but if you've defended it with sound reasoning, you have conducted legal reasoning.
Conclusion
This can be a one sentence statement. For instance, "Yes, the defendant battered the plaintiff." Instructions
- First, carefully read the following handouts in this order: 1) file attached below, and 2) file attached below.
- Finally, prepare a written response using the IRAC Method to establish: whether the Installer Agreement creates a bona fide independent contractor relationship between the parties, or a franchisor-franchisee relationship? (Hint, this is the “Issue”).
- The “Rule" part of IRAC is the FTC's three-part test set forth at the top of the first page of the “Laws Governing Franchises” handout. You can paraphrase the three elements to fulfill the “Rule” part of your submission.
- Now that you have the “Issue” and “Rule,” read through the “Redacted Contract” handout. Please note, this contract contains contradictory provisions.
- Your task is to see which provisions in the contract meet or do not meet the three elements of the “Rule” - this is the "Application" part of IRAC - applying the FTC's three-part test to the contract. This is also where you can bring in other helpful information from the “Laws Governing Franchises” handout (e.g. case law, agency clarification, etc.).
- Finally, after drafting a thorough “Application,” you will arrive at the "Conclusion" part of IRAC and you will answer the question presented by the “Issue.”
- Your written response must be formatted to include four sections, with each section titled “Issue” “Rule” “Application” and “Conclusion.”
Further questions can be answered if any