INSTRUCTIONS
Bob and Linda are married. They own and operate a hamburger restaurant in Vancouver. Bob recently hired a contractor to renovate the restaurant. Bob and the contractor discussed the terms of the contract, but unfortunately nothing was ever put into writing. The renovation went very badly, and Bob has decided not to pay the contractor any money. The contractor threatened to sue Bob and Linda for payment of the agreed upon contract price. The contract itself called for the installation of a new hardwood floor; however, the contractor installed an inferior laminate floor. When asked why he deviated from the terms of the contract, the contractor explained that he had thought the hardwood floor product identified in the contract would be available; however, he later found out it had been discontinued, so he installed the laminate flooring product. In addition to the laminate issue, the contractor installed the floor improperly so Bob is going to have to hire another contractor to fix the many mistakes that were made.
Using your knowledge of contracts and dispute resolution, analyze the facts and provide your opinion to Bob and Linda on their legal position and how they may best go about resolving their legal issues.
The method you will use to answer spot the issue(s) questions in this course is known as the IRAC formula. The IRAC formula presents a structured way for you to organize your thinking and your answer. The formula contains the following steps:
F (FACTS): Read the case and state the facts and nothing but the facts.
I (Issues): Identify the legal issue(s) succinctly, each in one short sentence. Sample wording could be: “…whether or not there has been a breach of contract…”, etc. Use a bullet format. Use citations were applicable. No further comments are required.
R (Rule – THE LAW): Identify the law that applies to the issue(s). This may arise from legislation or from common law. For example, negligence.
A (Critical Analysis): Apply reflective thought and critical analysis to the facts and the application of the law. (This is where the money is!!!) For example, if the tort of negligence was an issue, e.g., “…whether or not there was negligence…” you would have a discussion proving or disproving there was 1) a duty owed, 2) that a breach of that duty took place, 3) and that as a result, damages flowed – three essential elements of negligence.
C (Conclusion – FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATION/CONCLUSIONS): In succinct, short sentences, state your findings for each issue. An “executive summary” of a few short sentences containing the key points supporting your position for each of the issues, is expected.
The IRAC formula is used in the grading rubric for all of the “spot the issue(s)” assignments.