Jim agreed to loan Amy $2,000 to cover some of the expenses she incurred for a restaurant she had just opened. Due three months later, Amy had still not repaid the loan because of continuing cash demands from the restaurant. A skilled handyman, Jim helped in remodeling the building where the new restaurant was located without any agreement about a price for his work. The project was finally completed (about the time the loan payment was due) and Jim and Amy talked about the value of his work. An argument ensued with Amy believing that the cost was too high. When Amy received an invoice for his work for $1,300, she mailed back (fully stamped and carefully addressed), a check for $2,500. In an enclosed letter, she stated that the check was being sent in full settlement of both the loan and the work invoice. Jim endorsed and deposited the check at his local bank. But he continued to call Amy about the unpaid balance of $800. Your decision about whether Jim can recover this amount from Amy?
-Answer IRAC Model questions that apply to this scenario
What
facts and circumstances brought these parties to court?
Are
there buzzwords in the facts that suggest an issue?
Is the
court deciding a question of fact? – i.e. the parties are in dispute over what
happened OR is it a question of law – i.e. the court is unsure which rule to
apply to these facts?
What are
the non-issues?
Rule:
What is
the governing law for the issue?
What
elements of the rule must be proven in order for the rule to hold true?
What are
the exeptions to the rule?
From
what authority does it come?
What’s
the underlying public policy behind the rule?
Are
there social considerations?
Analysis: aka Lawyering
Does the
rule apply to these unique facts?
For
every relevant fact, you need to ask whether the fact helps to prove or disprove
the ruel
All
contracts for the sale of goods over $500 have to be in writing
Why are
certain facts relevant?
How do
these facts satisfy this rule?
What
types of facts are applied to the rule?
How do
these facts further the public policy underlying this rule?
What’s
the counter-argument for another solution?
Conclusion:
How
does the court’s holding modify the rule of law?
Whether
the rule applies to the facts?
Take a position and support it with a basis for
the opinion?
Whatever position I take has to have grounding
in the analysis.
If your case has flaws, it is important to
recognize those weaknesses and identify them?
If a rule does not apply, don’t fall into the
trap of being conclusive on a party’s liability or innocence. There may be another rule by which the party
should be judged. In other words, you
should conclude as to whether the rule applies, but you should not be
conclusive as to whether some other result is probable. In that case, you need to raise another rule
and analyze the facts again.
What’s the holding (aka finding) of the case?
Has the holding modified the existing rule of
law?
What is the procedural effect of the hlding?
Does the holding further the underlying policy
of the rule?
