« on: November 06, 2006, 12:09:08 PM »
My Contracts professor did an in-class exam-taking workshop a couple weeks ago, and he illustrated an alternative to IRAC, CRAC (sounds fun, eh?)
1. Conclusion - "Yes, John is guilty of battery against Mark." This is a simple answer, framing your argument for your professor. It will more easily guide them through your reasoning until you re-state your conclusion.
2. Rule - "According to the Restatement, a person has committed a battery against another when they have intended to make harmful or offensive contact that is neither consented to nor otherwise privileged." Simple statement of the rule is all that is necessary here. If you need to explain further to clarify your application section.
3. Application - "John punched Mark in the face when Mark wasn't looking, breaking his nose. Mark never consented to this action, and, even if he had, the act was unlawful, mitigating any consent. The act was not privileged, because it did not take place in a context, such as a boxing ring, where some actions are permitted." All you need to do here is apply the facts to the rule in order to buttress your conclusion.
4. Conclusion - "Therefore, John is guilty of battery against Mark, and may be held liable for any damages that may result as a consequence of this act." A more expansive conclusion that includes any other considerations as a result of the conclusion.
Not sure if that helps. But I think this format makes it a lot easier and a lot less stressful in doing hypotheticals and answering model exam questions.