Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Leachon <rachel.leachon@gmail.com>
Exercise 4
1 message
Ralph Sarmiento <attydeanralph@gmail.com> Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 11:04 AM
To: Rachel Leachon <rachel.leachon@gmail.com>
In answering Exercise # 4, please study and follow this GUIDE:
Analyzing the Problem
Before you read the entire problem, read the last part first to determine the call of the question. This gives
you what is being asked so that when you read the facts, you already have in mind the question & you can
immediately determine the relevance of every fact in the problem.
Then read the facts once and then again and then make notes of legal issues presented. Here you must
sort relevant and irrelevant facts.
Determining the Issues
To spot the issues, look closely at the transactions between the parties. Most issues will arise from the
conduct or actions of one party against another. Look at what parties say and do. Issues arise from the
conflicting factual or legal claims of the parties.
After you have gone through all the facts and have made your list of issues, ask yourself if there is a logical
order to the issues presented. Before you begin writing, read the call of the question again and then ask
yourself if the issues you have identified will enable you to resolve the call of the question.
Writing Your Answer
You get points by writing a wellreasoned response to the question(s) presented. Remember your basic
expository writing. An introduction, transitions between issues and a short conclusion can enhance the
quality of your response.
Try to write explicitly so that the examiner does not have to guess what you intended to write.
1. Identify legal issues clearly and use issue headings where appropriate.
2. Identify the applicable rule or legal standard necessary to resolve the legal issue. Put this in a
separate paragraph for a clearer presentation.
3. Apply the pertinent part of the rule to the relevant facts presented and identify possible
exceptions or limitations to the rule that might apply in light of the facts. This should also be
presented in a separate paragraph. Demonstrate that you recognize the implications of all the
facts. Use your judgment in light of the rules, facts, and relevant legal principles.
4. Move on to the next issue and repeat IRAC. While you don’t really have to use IRAC, you must
demonstrate, however, essential legal analysis skills, including issue spotting, rule articulation,
application of rule(s) to fact(s), and judgment in reaching plausible conclusions.
5. If you find several issues which you think are worth discussing, then follow the IRAC Formula:
Begin with an opening line that indicates the substance of your answer in a categorical manner
and in a way that is responsive to what is being asked in the problem or question.
1st Issue (most important issue first)
o Rule
o Application
o Conclusion
2nd Issue
o Rule
o Application
o Conclusion
Conclusion (Your final conclusion or a reiteration of your conclusion.)
6. If you find one issue only, then follow the CRAC Formula:
Conclusion (Same as in IRAC, begin with an opening line that indicates the substance of your
answer in a categorical manner and in a way that is responsive to what is being asked in the
problem or question.
Rule
Application
Conclusion (Your final conclusion or a reiteration of your conclusion.)
The basic elements of problem solving that the Examiners shall particularly look for are: the examinee’s
1. Proper understanding and appreciation of the facts, particularly of the components or details
that can be material in resolving the given problem;
2. his or her appreciation of the applicable laws that may come into play;
3. recognition of the issues posed; and the
4. resolution of the issues through the analysis and application of the law to the given facts.
5. The examinee's presentation and articulation of his or her answer shall also be given weight.
Problem for our Exercise # 4:
Pedro and Juan ran into each other at the Ecstasy Bar. After several drinks, Pedro says, “You know, I think
I'll bomb this place and then I’ll relocate and hide in the U.S.”
“Oh, yeah? And, how are you going to support yourself in the U.S. while in hiding?” asked Juan.
“Why, I'll sell my house. You can have it for One Million Pesos. Last week it was appraised at Five Million
Pesos.”
“You must be joking, that deal is too good to be true,” replied Juan, having another drink.
“Juan, it's just that you don't have the money.”
“No, I can have One Million Pesos cash at the end of the week.”
“Bring it then.”
“Are you serious?”
“Sure,” laughed Pedro.
“Well, it’s really timely because I need a new place for my DVD duplication business.”
“That's illegal! But I guess what you do with the place is your business,” said Pedro. “Let's shake hands
then.”
The two shook hands and left the bar.
However, before the end of the week, Juan received a letter duly signed by Pedro saying: “Of course I was
joking when I offered to sell you my house for only One Million Pesos. In any event, I don't actually want to
sell it.”
Is Pedro legally bound to make good on his promise to Juan? Decide.
Ralph A. Sarmiento
Mobile # +63 920 9387440
FB: facebook.com/attyralph
Twitter: twitter.com/attyralph
"If you can't reduce your argument to a few crisp words and phrases,
there's something wrong with your argument."
~ M. Saatchi