1
00:00:01,160 --> 00:00:04,130
An answer can contain the right rule and

2
00:00:04,140 --> 00:00:05,510
still leave the reader asking:

3
00:00:05,520 --> 00:00:07,540
why does it apply here?

4
00:00:08,320 --> 00:00:11,250
IRAC helps only when the application shows the

5
00:00:11,260 --> 00:00:14,500
connection between a specific
rule and specific facts.

6
00:00:15,140 --> 00:00:16,800
Let us make that connection visible.

7
00:00:17,620 --> 00:00:21,640
This is an original fictional
exercise, not a statement of UK law.

8
00:00:22,340 --> 00:00:25,270
For this exercise alone, assume a club's policy

9
00:00:25,280 --> 00:00:28,290
allows a late booking if the organiser approved

10
00:00:28,300 --> 00:00:30,140
extra time before the deadline.

11
00:00:31,220 --> 00:00:32,320
Maya submits a booking late.

12
00:00:32,780 --> 00:00:34,930
She says the organiser approved extra time in

13
00:00:34,940 --> 00:00:37,770
an email. The email says, 'I will check

14
00:00:37,780 --> 00:00:40,810
whether we can extend it.' The issue is

15
00:00:40,820 --> 00:00:44,400
precise: was extra time
approved before the deadline?

16
00:00:45,020 --> 00:00:46,820
'Is Maya right?' is too broad.

17
00:00:47,180 --> 00:00:49,730
A useful issue identifies the condition you need

18
00:00:49,740 --> 00:00:53,020
to investigate. The rule is the assumed policy.

19
00:00:53,360 --> 00:00:55,590
In a real legal problem, you would establish

20
00:00:55,600 --> 00:00:57,910
the relevant legal test from the statute or

21
00:00:57,920 --> 00:01:00,330
authority you have read, with the correct source

22
00:01:00,340 --> 00:01:03,630
reference. A sentence that
sounds plausible is not

23
00:01:03,640 --> 00:01:04,940
a substitute for that step.

24
00:01:05,720 --> 00:01:09,230
Now application. One weak
version says, 'Maya had

25
00:01:09,240 --> 00:01:12,190
an email, therefore the
booking is allowed.' That

26
00:01:12,200 --> 00:01:13,420
jumps over the condition.

27
00:01:14,000 --> 00:01:16,270
The better question is
whether the email actually

28
00:01:16,280 --> 00:01:19,390
approves extra time, and
whether it arrived before

29
00:01:19,400 --> 00:01:22,110
the deadline. Maya can point to the organiser

30
00:01:22,120 --> 00:01:25,450
discussing an extension.
Against that, 'I will check'

31
00:01:25,460 --> 00:01:28,310
may express an intention
to investigate rather than

32
00:01:28,320 --> 00:01:31,410
approval. We also need the email's date and

33
00:01:31,420 --> 00:01:34,070
any later reply. Notice that we are weighing

34
00:01:34,080 --> 00:01:37,170
facts against the particular
condition, not filling a

35
00:01:37,180 --> 00:01:39,220
paragraph with every detail in the story.

36
00:01:39,920 --> 00:01:41,720
The conclusion follows those reasons.

37
00:01:42,400 --> 00:01:44,850
On this limited information,
approval has not been

38
00:01:44,860 --> 00:01:47,220
clearly established under our fictional policy.

39
00:01:47,820 --> 00:01:50,650
A later message explicitly
approving extra time before

40
00:01:50,660 --> 00:01:52,680
the deadline could change the analysis.

41
00:01:53,340 --> 00:01:55,770
Name that uncertainty instead
of inventing the missing

42
00:01:55,780 --> 00:02:00,130
message. Now pause. Which added fact is most

43
00:02:00,140 --> 00:02:03,670
directly relevant: Maya's
favourite colour, or a dated

44
00:02:03,680 --> 00:02:05,160
approval from the organiser?

45
00:02:09,540 --> 00:02:12,760
The dated approval addresses
the condition we identified.

46
00:02:13,380 --> 00:02:14,920
That is why it matters.

47
00:02:15,580 --> 00:02:17,470
In a real problem, there may be several

48
00:02:17,480 --> 00:02:19,920
issues, parties and possible arguments.

49
00:02:20,480 --> 00:02:23,390
Give each material issue
its own reasoning sequence,

50
00:02:23,400 --> 00:02:25,980
and follow your module's preferred structure.

51
00:02:26,760 --> 00:02:29,230
Do not manufacture an opposing argument when the

52
00:02:29,240 --> 00:02:30,600
facts do not support it.

53
00:02:31,320 --> 00:02:32,960
Keep the law close to the facts.

54
00:02:33,380 --> 00:02:36,630
Explain the connection.
Conclude with the reasons and

55
00:02:36,640 --> 00:02:39,740
the limits. The free
problem-question guide is below;

56
00:02:40,160 --> 00:02:42,080
your final assessed work remains your own.