IRAC Method of Analyzing Legal Problems Questions

Give IRAC arguments for each scenario please. The scenarios are from the textbook end of chapter questions.

A. Mr. and Mrs. Smith, an elderly couple, had no relatives. When Mrs. Smith became ill, the Smiths asked a friend, Henrietta, to help with various housekeeping chores, including cleaning and cooking. Although the Smiths never promised to pay her, Henrietta performed the chores for eighteen months. Henrietta claimed that she was entitled to the reasonable value of the services performed. Argue either side.1.B. Assume instead that the Smiths asked Mrs. Smith’s sister, Caroline, who lived nearby, to help with the housekeeping. After eighteen months, Caroline claimed she was entitled to the reasonable value of the services performed. Argue either side.

Joan called Devon Sand & Gravel and ordered two “boxes” (dump-truck loads) of gravel to be spread on her rural driveway by the “shoot and run” method: the tailgate is partially opened, the dump-truck bed is lifted, and the truck moves down the driveway spreading gravel as it goes. The driver mistakenly graveled the driveway of Joan’s neighbor, Watson, instead of Joan’s. Would Devon be entitled to payment by Watson? Argue either side.

On November 26, Joe wrote to Kate offering to purchase a farm that she owned. Upon receiving the letter on November 28, Kate immediately sent Joe a letter of acceptance. However, shortly after mailing the letter, Kate had second thoughts and called Joe to advise him that she was rejecting his offer. The call was made before Joe received the letter of acceptance. The issue is whether a contract has been formed and if it has, what kind of contract was formed.

Duke decided to sell his car. The car’s muffler had a large hole in it, and as a result, the car made a loud noise. Before showing the car to potential buyers, Duke patched the hole with muffler tape to quiet it. Perry bought the car after test-driving it. He later discovered the faulty muffler and sought to avoid the contract, claiming fraud. Duke argued that he had not committed fraud because Perry had not asked about the muffler and Duke had made no representation of fact concerning it. The issue is whether Duke had committed fraud.

Joseph Hoffman alleged that Red Owl Stores promised him that it would build a store building in Chilton, Wisconsin, and stock it with merchandise for Hoffman to operate in return for Hoffman’s investment of $18,000. The size, cost, design, and layout of the store building was not discussed, nor were the terms of the lease as to rent, maintenance, and purchase options. Nevertheless, in reliance on Red Owl’s promise, the Hoffmans sold their bakery and grocery store business, purchased the building site in Chilton, and rented a residence there for the family. The deal was never consummated: a dispute arose, Red Owl did not build the store, and it denied liability to Hoffman on the basis that its promise to him was too indefinite with respect to all details for a contract to have resulted. The issue is whether Hoffman was entitled to some relief? On what theory?

IRAC: In this course, students will be expected to use the IRAC method of analyzing legal problemsand issues. The IRAC method will be discussed during the first class and multiple examples will be
given during subsequent classes. All extended response questions on quizzes and weekly writing
assignments will be evaluated using the IRAC framework. See sample IRAC arguments in Brightspace.
o I: Issue: The issue is whether ….
o R: Rule: The rule of law (for the issue) is ….
o A: Analysis: The facts of the case are … and apply to the rule of law by …
o C: Conclusion: Therefore, …
• Additional Course Policies and Procedures: The only news media sources allowed are: 1) the
Washington Post; 2) the Wall Street Journal; 3) the New York Times; and 4) Investor’s Business Daily.

Answer:

A. Mr. and Mrs. Smith, an elderly couple, had no relatives. When Mrs. Smith became ill, the Smiths asked a friend, Henrietta, to help with various housekeeping chores, including cleaning and cooking. Although the Smiths never promised to pay her, Henrietta performed the chores for eighteen months. Henrietta claimed that she was entitled to the reasonable value of the services performed. Argue either side.

I: Issue Whether Henrietta is entitled to compensation for the housekeeping chores she performed for Mr. and Mrs. Smith.

R: Rule Under contract law, for a contract to be formed, there must be an offer, acceptance, consideration, legal capacity, and legal purpose.

A: Analysis Henrietta performed housekeeping chores for Mr. and Mrs. Smith without a prior agreement regarding compensation. However, it can be argued that there was an implied contract based on her performance of services with the expectation of payment. While there was no explicit offer and acceptance regarding payment, Henrietta’s actions can be construed as providing consideration in exchange for the promise of payment. On the other hand, it can be argued that without a clear agreement or promise to pay for the services rendered, Henrietta cannot claim compensation.

C: Conclusion Therefore, whether Henrietta is entitled to compensation depends on the interpretation of the circumstances surrounding the housekeeping arrangement. While there may be grounds for an implied contract, the lack of explicit agreement regarding payment complicates the determination of her entitlement to compensation.

B. Assume instead that the Smiths asked Mrs. Smith’s sister, Caroline, who lived nearby, to help with the housekeeping. After eighteen months, Caroline claimed she was entitled to the reasonable value of the services performed. Argue either side.

I: Issue Whether Caroline is entitled to compensation for the housekeeping chores she performed for Mr. and Mrs. Smith.

R: Rule Under contract law, for a contract to be formed, there must be an offer, acceptance, consideration, legal capacity, and legal purpose.

A: Analysis Similar to the previous scenario, Caroline performed housekeeping chores for Mr. and Mrs. Smith without a prior agreement regarding compensation. However, Caroline’s familial relationship with Mrs. Smith might lead to different interpretations. While there may not have been an explicit offer and acceptance regarding payment, Caroline’s performance of services could be viewed as a familial obligation rather than a contractual arrangement. Alternatively, it could be argued that Caroline’s actions were undertaken with the expectation of payment, thus constituting an implied contract.

C: Conclusion Therefore, whether Caroline is entitled to compensation hinges on the interpretation of the familial relationship and the circumstances surrounding the housekeeping arrangement. While there may be grounds for an implied contract, the familial nature of the arrangement complicates the determination of her entitlement to compensation.

C. Joan called Devon Sand & Gravel and ordered two “boxes” (dump-truck loads) of gravel to be spread on her rural driveway by the “shoot and run” method: the tailgate is partially opened, the dump-truck bed is lifted, and the truck moves down the driveway spreading gravel as it goes. The driver mistakenly graveled the driveway of Joan’s neighbor, Watson, instead of Joan’s. Would Devon be entitled to payment by Watson? Argue either side.

I: Issue Whether Devon Sand & Gravel is entitled to payment from Watson for the mistakenly delivered gravel.

R: Rule Under contract law, for a contract to be formed, there must be an offer, acceptance, consideration, legal capacity, and legal purpose. Additionally, the doctrine of unilateral mistake may apply if one party is mistaken about a material fact.

A: Analysis Devon Sand & Gravel fulfilled Joan’s request to deliver gravel, albeit mistakenly to the wrong location. From Devon’s perspective, they may argue that they performed the services as requested by Joan, and therefore, they are entitled to payment for their services rendered. However, from Watson’s perspective, he did not request or agree to receive the gravel, and thus, he may contend that there was no contract formed between him and Devon Sand & Gravel for the delivery of gravel to his driveway.

C: Conclusion Therefore, whether Devon Sand & Gravel is entitled to payment by Watson depends on the interpretation of the circumstances surrounding the mistaken delivery. While Devon fulfilled their obligation to deliver gravel, the unilateral mistake in delivery may negate the formation of a contract between Devon and Watson, thereby complicating the determination of Devon’s entitlement to payment.

D. On November 26, Joe wrote to Kate offering to purchase a farm that she owned. Upon receiving the letter on November 28, Kate immediately sent Joe a letter of acceptance. However, shortly after mailing the letter, Kate had second thoughts and called Joe to advise him that she was rejecting his offer. The call was made before Joe received the letter of acceptance. The issue is whether a contract has been formed and if it has, what kind of contract was formed.

I: Issue Whether a contract has been formed between Joe and Kate regarding the purchase of the farm, and if so, what kind of contract was formed.

R: Rule Under contract law, for a contract to be formed, there must be an offer, acceptance, consideration, legal capacity, and legal purpose. The timing of offer acceptance is crucial, as acceptance must be communicated effectively to the offeror.

A: Analysis Joe made an offer to purchase Kate’s farm on November 26, and Kate accepted the offer by sending a letter of acceptance on November 28. However, Kate subsequently attempted to revoke her acceptance by calling Joe before he received the letter. Whether a contract was formed depends on whether Kate’s revocation of acceptance was effective before it was received by Joe.

C: Conclusion Therefore, whether a contract was formed between Joe and Kate depends on the timing of Kate’s revocation of acceptance. If her revocation was effective before Joe received the letter of acceptance, then no contract was formed. Conversely, if Joe received the letter before Kate’s revocation, then a valid contract was formed for the purchase of the farm.

Duke decided to sell his car. The car’s muffler had a large hole in it, and as a result, the car made a loud noise. Before showing the car to potential buyers, Duke patched the hole with muffler tape to quiet it. Perry bought the car after test-driving it. He later discovered the faulty muffler and sought to avoid the contract, claiming fraud. Duke argued that he had not committed fraud because Perry had not asked about the muffler and Duke had made no representation of fact concerning it. The issue is whether Duke had committed fraud.

I: Issue Whether Duke committed fraud by failing to disclose the faulty muffler during the sale of the car to Perry.

R: Rule Under contract law, fraud occurs when one party intentionally conceals or misrepresents material facts with the intent to deceive and induce the other party into entering the contract.

A: Analysis Duke knew about the faulty muffler and attempted to conceal it by patching it with muffler tape before selling the car to Perry. While Duke did not make any affirmative misrepresentations about the muffler, his actions could be construed as fraudulent if he intentionally concealed the defect to deceive Perry into purchasing the car. Perry’s failure to inquire about the muffler does not necessarily absolve Duke of fraud if he had a duty to disclose the information.

C: Conclusion Therefore, whether Duke committed fraud depends on whether he intentionally concealed the faulty muffler with the intent to deceive Perry. If Duke’s actions were found to be fraudulent, Perry may be entitled to avoid the contract and seek remedies for the misrepresentation.

Joseph Hoffman alleged that Red Owl Stores promised him that it would build a store building in Chilton, Wisconsin, and stock it with merchandise for Hoffman to operate in return for Hoffman’s investment of $18,000. The size, cost, design, and layout of the store building were not discussed, nor were the terms of the lease as to rent, maintenance, and purchase options. Nevertheless, in reliance on Red Owl’s promise, the Hoffmans sold their bakery and grocery store business, purchased the building site in Chilton, and rented a residence there for the family. The deal was never consummated: a dispute arose, Red Owl did not build the store, and it denied liability to Hoffman on the basis that its promise to him was too indefinite with respect to all details for a contract to have resulted. The issue is whether Hoffman was entitled to some relief? On what theory?

I: Issue Whether Joseph Hoffman is entitled to relief against Red Owl Stores for their promise to build a store building and stock it with merchandise.

R: Rule Under contract law, for a contract to be enforceable, the terms must be sufficiently definite and certain to enable the court to determine the parties’ obligations.

A: Analysis Red Owl Stores made a promise to Joseph Hoffman to build a store building and stock it with merchandise in exchange for Hoffman’s investment. However, the terms of the agreement were vague and lacked specificity regarding the size, cost, design, layout, and lease terms. While Hoffman relied on Red Owl’s promise and took actions in furtherance of the agreement, the absence of definite terms may render the contract unenforceable.

C: Conclusion Therefore, whether Hoffman is entitled to relief against Red Owl Stores depends on whether the court determines the promise made by Red Owl was sufficiently definite to constitute a legally enforceable contract. If the court finds the terms too indefinite, Hoffman may not be entitled to relief. However, other theories such as promissory estoppel or unjust enrichment may provide Hoffman with some form of relief based on his reliance on Red Owl’s promise.