Suggested solution using the irac method
TECHNIQUE IN ANSWERING LAW EXAMINATION QUESTIONS
(MUST USE THE FOLLOWING FORMAT TO ANSWER THE ASSIGNMENT – PLS USE THE LAW FROM SINGAPORE, NOT ANY OTHER COUNTRY LAW).
b. Describe and explain the RULES OF LAW or LEGAL PRINCIPLES involved in relation to the cause of action you have identified above. At this juncture, you should state the relevant legal rules on the area/topic that is in issue or contention. This is done via the medium of a decided case or a provision of a statute. To cite a case you should name the case and the principle it establishes. If the decided case has a scenario similar to the situation in the question you should ideally let the examiner know the fact situation in the decided case as well. To cite a provision in a statute, you should ideally give the section number, the name of the Act and a paraphrase of the provision explaining the meaning of important words. So in the question above, you should ideally cite the case of Pharmaceutical Society v. Boots Chemist and Fisher v. Bell and the principles it establishes. In the event that the candidate has temporarily forgotten the name of a case, examiners may, in exceptional cases, accept the brief material facts of the case and the principle the case establishes. This dispensation is, however, only granted sparingly, so do not take advantage of the examiner’s generosity!
c. APPLY the legal rules you have defined and explained, to the facts and circumstances given in the question scenario and CONCLUDE with your opinion or views on the matter. At this point in time, you would also need to consider the following: -
Let us try this out with a typical “problem” scenario question
Alfred went on a holiday in Phuket. Whilst on the holiday beach resort, he hired a deckchair for use on the beach. Rental of the chairs were controlled by the resort owners. Alfred paid a fee for the use of the chair in return for which he received a ticket. There were conditions written on the back of the ticket, one of which was a clause with the following words:
SUGGESTED SOLUTION USING THE IRAC METHOD
(Identifying the Issues)
The incorporation of the clause into the contract by way of notification via the ticket.
The possible neutralization of the exemption clause under the provisions of the Unfair Contract Terms Act.
(Defining and Explaining the RULES of Law/Legal principles)
3. Even if an exemption clause has been successfully incorporated, it may be neutralized and thus made void by the Unfair Contract Terms Act. This Act applies to liabilities that result in the course of a business and provides (under Section 2) that an exemption clause that excludes the liability for negligence resulting in death or personal injury is automatically void and of no effect.
4. Negligence is now by far the most important and commonest of torts. The growth of this tort is the result of a number of factors, one of which is a greater awareness of the legal rights of individuals when they suffer personal injury or damage to their property through some other people's fault. In the case of Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co. 1856, negligence is defined as:
c. The plaintiff sustained injury, loss or damage as a result of that breach of duty.
d. The breach of duty was the proximate cause of the injury, loss or damage sustained. This means that the plaintiff must be able to prove that the defendant's act or omission was the proximate cause of the injury, loss or damage. If there are any intervening events between the defendant’s act and the damage which occurs over which the defendant has no control and which effectively "break the chain of causation", the defence may be raised that the damage is "too remote". The court has ruled in a number of occasions that damage would be too remote if it is not reasonably foreseeable. See: Overseas Tankships Ltd v. Mort Docks and Engineering Co Ltd 1961. Later cases point out that what has to be foreseen is the type or kind of harm and not the extent of harm. Thus in Bradford v. Robinson Rentals Ltd 1967, the defendant carelessly exposed the plaintiff to extreme cold during his duties as an employee. Consequently he suffered frostbite. What was foreseeable was something such as a chill. Nevertheless the court held the defendant employers liable for the frostbite, as it was a more severe manifestation of a type of harm that was foreseeable.
