Answering Hypos: A Basic Template
Answering Hypos – A Basic Template
IcRAC: Issue, Conclusion, Rule, Application, Conclusion
Step 1: Pinpoint the Issues
Generally state the parties, main cause of action and its elements:
Eg. The issue presented is whether Lily can hold Walter liable in the tort of battery. To succeed in a claiming of battery, the P must prove that there must be an intentional and direct act by the D which causes some undesired physical contact with the P.
Pinpoint the particular elements raised by the question (if any):
Eg. In particular, the specific issue raised by the present facts is whether the requirements of intention and directness under the tort of battery are satisfied.
Eg. The specific issue to be addressed in this case is whether Jasper can raise the defence of necessity/best interests of the patient.
Eg. The specific issue raised is whether detention that is initially lawful can become tortious subsequently as false imprisonment.
Step 2: Offer your conclusion to answer the call of the question
Answer the specific issue and the main issue:
Eg. The D will be liable/will not be liable under the tort of battery because the requirements of intention and directness are not made out.
Step 3: State succinctly what Rule you are applying to resolve each issue
Extract a current and general principle of law from the relevant cases. Cite that current proposition of law for each of the specific issues raised and the statute/case authority relied upon:
Eg. To succeed in a claim for false imprisonment, the defendant need not be aware of the restraint: Murray v Ministry of Defence.
Eg. The defence of best interests of the patient is inapplicable when an adult is of sound mind and she is entitled to refuse medical treatment, even if it would save her life: St George’s Healthcare Trust.
Eg. The cases of Robinson v Balmain New Ferry and Herd v Weardale Steel suggest that consent to detention once given cannot be revoked so an action in false imprisonment
IcRAC: Issue, Conclusion, Rule, Application, Conclusion
Step 1: Pinpoint the Issues
Generally state the parties, main cause of action and its elements:
Eg. The issue presented is whether Lily can hold Walter liable in the tort of battery. To succeed in a claiming of battery, the P must prove that there must be an intentional and direct act by the D which causes some undesired physical contact with the P.
Pinpoint the particular elements raised by the question (if any):
Eg. In particular, the specific issue raised by the present facts is whether the requirements of intention and directness under the tort of battery are satisfied.
Eg. The specific issue to be addressed in this case is whether Jasper can raise the defence of necessity/best interests of the patient.
Eg. The specific issue raised is whether detention that is initially lawful can become tortious subsequently as false imprisonment.
Step 2: Offer your conclusion to answer the call of the question
Answer the specific issue and the main issue:
Eg. The D will be liable/will not be liable under the tort of battery because the requirements of intention and directness are not made out.
Step 3: State succinctly what Rule you are applying to resolve each issue
Extract a current and general principle of law from the relevant cases. Cite that current proposition of law for each of the specific issues raised and the statute/case authority relied upon:
Eg. To succeed in a claim for false imprisonment, the defendant need not be aware of the restraint: Murray v Ministry of Defence.
Eg. The defence of best interests of the patient is inapplicable when an adult is of sound mind and she is entitled to refuse medical treatment, even if it would save her life: St George’s Healthcare Trust.
Eg. The cases of Robinson v Balmain New Ferry and Herd v Weardale Steel suggest that consent to detention once given cannot be revoked so an action in false imprisonment