IRAC Explained: Applying Rules to Facts | Law Problem Questions

An answer can contain the right rule and still leave the reader asking: why does it apply here? IRAC helps only when the application shows the connection between a specific rule and specific facts. Let us make that connection visible.

This is an original fictional exercise, not a statement of UK law. For this exercise alone, assume a club's policy allows a late booking if the organiser approved extra time before the deadline. Maya submits a booking late. She says the organiser approved extra time in an email. The email says, 'I will check whether we can extend it.'

The issue is precise: was extra time approved before the deadline? 'Is Maya right?' is too broad. A useful issue identifies the condition you need to investigate.

The rule is the assumed policy. In a real legal problem, you would establish the relevant legal test from the statute or authority you have read, with the correct source reference. A sentence that sounds plausible is not a substitute for that step.

Now application. One weak version says, 'Maya had an email, therefore the booking is allowed.' That jumps over the condition. The better question is whether the email actually approves extra time, and whether it arrived before the deadline.

Maya can point to the organiser discussing an extension. Against that, 'I will check' may express an intention to investigate rather than approval. We also need the email's date and any later reply. Notice that we are weighing facts against the particular condition, not filling a paragraph with every detail in the story.

The conclusion follows those reasons. On this limited information, approval has not been clearly established under our fictional policy. A later message explicitly approving extra time before the deadline could change the analysis. Name that uncertainty instead of inventing the missing message.

Now pause. Which added fact is most directly relevant: Maya's favourite colour, or a dated approval from the organiser? The dated approval addresses the condition we identified. That is why it matters.

In a real problem, there may be several issues, parties and possible arguments. Give each material issue its own reasoning sequence, and follow your module's preferred structure. Do not manufacture an opposing argument when the facts do not support it.

Keep the law close to the facts. Explain the connection. Conclude with the reasons and the limits. The free problem-question guide is below; your final assessed work remains your own.