February 24, 2025 • 9 mins
Welcome back to the Law School Toolbox podcast! This is the third episode of a four-part series called "Legal Writing Makeover." In this complete series, we take a piece of legal writing that could use improvement and transform it into legal writing A+, one section of IRAC at a time. Previously we discussed the issue statement and rule statement, and today we continue with the analysis section.
In this episode we discuss:
- An analysis section from a sample exam answer
- How to write a good analysis that earns you the maximum points on an exam
Resources:
- Tutoring for Law School Success (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/tutoring-for-law-school-success/)
- Legal Writing in Law School (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/legal-writing-in-law-school/)
- Three Cs of Legal Writing…And one T (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/three-cs-of-legal-writingand-one-t/)
- Five Tips for a Great Legal Writing Assignment (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/five-tips-for-a-great-legal-writing-assignment/)
- The Elusive Mini-IRAC (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/the-elusive-mini-irac/)
- If X, Y, and Z, Then A: Legal Analysis Is Simple (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/if-xy-and-z-then-a-legal-analysis-is-simple/)
- Podcast Episode 489: A Legal Writing Makeover (Part 1 – The Issue Statement) (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-489-a-legal-writing-makeover-part-1-the-issue-statement/)
- Podcast Episode 490: A Legal Writing Makeover (Part 2 – The Rule Statement) (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-490-a-legal-writing-makeover-part-2-the-rule-statement/)
- Podcast Episode 493: A Legal Writing Makeover (Part 4 – The Conclusion) (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-493-a-legal-writing-makeover-part-4-the-conclusion/)
Download the Transcript
(https://lawschooltoolbox.com/episode-491-a-legal-writing-makeover-part-3-the-analysis-section/)
If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/law-school-toolbox-podcast/id1027603976) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Law School Toolbox website (http://lawschooltoolbox.com/contact). If you're concerned about the bar exam, check out our sister site, the Bar Exam Toolbox (http://barexamtoolbox
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Lee Burgess (00:01):
Welcome back to the Law School Toolbox podcast.
Today, we are continuing a four-part"Quick Tips" series, in which we will
complete a full legal writing makeover.
Your Law School Toolbox hosts are AlisonMonahan and Lee Burgess, that's me.
We're here to demystify the lawschool and early legal career
experience, so you'll be the bestlaw student and lawyer you can be.
(00:22):
We're the co-creators of the Law SchoolToolbox, the Bar Exam Toolbox, and the
career-related website CareerDicta.
Alison also runs TheGirl's Guide to Law School.
If you enjoy the show, please leavea review or rating on your favorite
listening app, and check out our sisterpodcast, the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast.
If you have any questions, don'thesitate to reach out to us.
You can reach us via the contactform on LawSchoolToolbox.com,
(00:42):
and we'd love to hear from you.
And with that, let's get started.
This episode is the third partof our four-part series called
"Legal Writing Makeover".
In this series, we will take a poorlywritten piece of legal writing and
transform it into legal writingA+, one section of IRAC at a time.
(01:06):
Today we are focusing on the third partof IRAC - the "A", or analysis section.
But before we jump into that,let's recap the situation.
You are responding to a short-answerquestion on an exam that asks
whether there is an enforceablecontract against the buyer.
The facts indicate that the buyer andseller agreed via phone that the seller
(01:27):
would sell the buyer a boat for $400,000.
However, after this phone conversation,the buyer sent a signed letter to the
seller saying, "I have run into somefinancial difficulty and will not be able
to honor our agreement to buy your boatfor $400,000." The seller now wishes to
enforce the contract against the buyer.
The prompt asks (01:47):
"Is there an enforceable contract against the
buyer for the sale of the boat?"
Let's also recap the response to thisquestion that could use a makeover.
The response states (01:58):
"The issue is whether there is a contract
for the sale of the boat.
The formation of a contract requiresa mutual assent, which involves
both a valid offer and acceptance,consideration or a bargained-for exchange
involved, and a lack of any defensesto the formation of said contract.
The UCC Article 2 is thepresiding contract law concerning
(02:20):
any sale of moveable goods.
The UCC, likewise, has a statute offrauds provision, which requires that
a contract concerning moveable goods ofover $500 be written on paper in writing.
Here, the buyer and seller had aconversation on May 1st, where they
agreed to the sale of the boat for$400,000 and agreed that the seller
(02:41):
would deliver the boat to the buyer'shouse on May 4th, which the buyer
would then pay the purchase price.
This agreement indicates a mutualassent and a consideration, and
has no defenses to formation.
However, because the boat is amoveable good over $500, therefore
the statute of frauds requiresthe contract to be in writing.
(03:02):
The buyer signed a letter andmailed it to the seller, indicating
he did not want to buy the boat.
This letter satisfies the statute offrauds requirement and would be an
enforceable contract against the buyer."
In the first episode of this series,we revisited our issue statement
to a statement that identifies thespecific issue that we must determine
to answer the question in the prompt.
(03:25):
In Episode 2, we added a preliminarymini-IRAC regarding what law governs this
contract and revised our rule statement.
The first part of this answer simplystates: "A preliminary issue is
what law governs this contract.
The UCC governs all contractsfor the sale of goods.
Goods are things that aremovable at the time of formation.
(03:47):
Here, the boat is a good, becauseit is a movable thing, and therefore
the UCC governs this contract.
The next issue is whether thebuyer's letter to the seller is
a sufficient writing to satisfythe statute of frauds and enforce
the contract against the buyer.
The formation of an enforceable contractrequires mutual assent, consideration,
and no defenses to formation.
(04:09):
The statute of frauds isa defense to formation.
Under the UCC statute of frauds, contractsfor the sale of goods over $500 must
be in a writing that, [1] is sufficientto show that a contract was made; [2]
identifies the subject matter of thecontract; [3] includes all essential
terms, meaning a quantity term for theUCC; and [4] is signed by the party
(04:33):
against whom enforcement is sought."
Now with that, let's turn to thenext section of our IRAC - the
"A", or analysis section.
This section is your moneymaker.
It is often the section in whichyou can earn the most points
on a law school or bar exam.
And here is the good news (04:50):
Once you have a detailed correct rule statement,
your analysis almost writes itself.
All you have to do is walk througheach part of your rule statement and
use your facts to explain why thatelement is or is not satisfied here.
So, let's see how this works in practice,starting with the first two sentences
of our current analysis (05:10):
"Here, the buyer and seller had a conversation on
May 1st, where they agreed to the saleof the boat for $400,000 and agreed
that the seller would deliver the boatto buyer's house on May 4th, which the
buyer would then pay the purchase price.This agreement indicates a mutual assent
and consideration, and has no defensesto formation." The first sentence
(05:36):
of this analysis restates facts thatare relevant to establish formation.
And the second sentence makes two correctconclusions and one incorrect conclusion.
However, the analysis does not linkthe elements of contract formation to
the fact that establishes each element.
So let's break our conclusions aboutmutual assent and consideration
(05:57):
into separate sentences andlink each to the specific fact
that establishes each element:
" Here, mutual assent is satisfiedbecause the buyer and seller
agreed about the sale of the boatduring the May 1st conversation.
Consideration is also satisfiedbecause the agreement is for the
exchange of the boat from theseller for $400,000 from the buyer."
(06:23):
Notice how we walk through eachelement of our rule and link that
element to the fact that establishesthe element, using the word "because".
Also, as noted in our last episode,mutual assent and consideration are
easily established in this fact pattern.
So we are able to address each ofthose elements in a single sentence.
(06:44):
This gives us more time tofocus on the major issue in this
question - the statute of frauds.
Regarding the statute of frauds, ourcurrent answer states: "However,
because the boat is a moveable goodover $500, therefore the statute of
frauds requires the contract to be inwriting. The buyer signed a letter and
mailed it to the seller, indicatinghe did not want to buy the boat.
(07:07):
This letter satisfies the statute offrauds requirement and would be an
enforceable contract against the buyer."
The first sentence isn't transitionsentence that explains why
the statute of frauds applies.
The second sentence is another summary ofthe facts relevant to determine whether
the statute of frauds is satisfied.
And the third sentence isanother correct conclusion.
(07:29):
However, again, this analysis fails toexplain why that is the correct conclusion
by linking each part of our rule to thefact that establishes that requirement.
So, here's an example of how to do that:
"Regarding potential defenses toformation, the statute of frauds applies
because this contract is for the saleof a good - the boat - for over $500.
(07:52):
However, the buyer's signed letterto the seller may satisfy the statute
of frauds writing requirements.
First, the letter is sufficient toshow that a contract was formed because
it refers to the parties' agreement.
The letter also identifies thesubject matter of the contract
as the agreement that the buyerwould buy the boat for $400,000.
(08:13):
Third, the letter contains the onlyessential term for a UCC contract - a
quantity term - by referringto the seller's single "boat".
Forth, the letter is signed by theparty against whom enforcement is
sought, because the buyer signed theletter and the seller is now trying to
enforce the contract against the buyer."
Now, by linking the statute of fraudswriting requirements to the factual
(08:37):
detail that establishes each requirement,we added the "why" to our analysis.
In other words, now our analysisexplains why the buyer's letter
satisfies the statute of frauds.
This is the kind of analysis thatprofessors and bar graders love.
This is how you can earn the mostpoints on any exam, explaining
(08:57):
why you reached your conclusion.
And that wraps up Part 3 of our"Legal Writing Makeover" series - how
to fix your analysis section.
We hope that this episode helps youunderstand how to write a high scoring
analysis section by explaining why.
In Part 4 of our "Legal Writing Makeover",we will finish this series by adding
a final conclusion to our answer.
(09:20):
If you enjoyed this episode of theLaw School Toolbox podcast, please
take a second to leave a review andrating on your favorite listening app.
We'd really appreciate it.
And be sure to subscribeso you don't miss anything.
If you have any questions orcomments, please don't hesitate
to reach out to myself or Alisonat lee@lawschooltoolbox.com or
alison@lawschooltoolbox.com.
Or you can always contactus via our website contact
(09:41):
form on LawSchoolToolbox.com.
Thanks for listening, and we'll talk soon!
Welcome back to the Law School Toolbox podcast.
Today, we are continuing a four-part"Quick Tips" series, in which we will
complete a full legal writing makeover.
Your Law School Toolbox hosts are AlisonMonahan and Lee Burgess, that's me.
We're here to demystify the lawschool and early legal career
experience, so you'll be the bestlaw student and lawyer you can be.
(00:22):
We're the co-creators of the Law SchoolToolbox, the Bar Exam Toolbox, and the
career-related website CareerDicta.
Alison also runs TheGirl's Guide to Law School.
If you enjoy the show, please leavea review or rating on your favorite
listening app, and check out our sisterpodcast, the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast.
If you have any questions, don'thesitate to reach out to us.
You can reach us via the contactform on LawSchoolToolbox.com,
(00:42):
and we'd love to hear from you.
And with that, let's get started.
This episode is the third partof our four-part series called
"Legal Writing Makeover".
In this series, we will take a poorlywritten piece of legal writing and
transform it into legal writingA+, one section of IRAC at a time.
(01:06):
Today we are focusing on the third partof IRAC - the "A", or analysis section.
But before we jump into that,let's recap the situation.
You are responding to a short-answerquestion on an exam that asks
whether there is an enforceablecontract against the buyer.
The facts indicate that the buyer andseller agreed via phone that the seller
(01:27):
would sell the buyer a boat for $400,000.
However, after this phone conversation,the buyer sent a signed letter to the
seller saying, "I have run into somefinancial difficulty and will not be able
to honor our agreement to buy your boatfor $400,000." The seller now wishes to
enforce the contract against the buyer.
The prompt asks (01:47):
"Is there an enforceable contract against the
buyer for the sale of the boat?"
Let's also recap the response to thisquestion that could use a makeover.
The response states (01:58):
"The issue is whether there is a contract
for the sale of the boat.
The formation of a contract requiresa mutual assent, which involves
both a valid offer and acceptance,consideration or a bargained-for exchange
involved, and a lack of any defensesto the formation of said contract.
The UCC Article 2 is thepresiding contract law concerning
(02:20):
any sale of moveable goods.
The UCC, likewise, has a statute offrauds provision, which requires that
a contract concerning moveable goods ofover $500 be written on paper in writing.
Here, the buyer and seller had aconversation on May 1st, where they
agreed to the sale of the boat for$400,000 and agreed that the seller
(02:41):
would deliver the boat to the buyer'shouse on May 4th, which the buyer
would then pay the purchase price.
This agreement indicates a mutualassent and a consideration, and
has no defenses to formation.
However, because the boat is amoveable good over $500, therefore
the statute of frauds requiresthe contract to be in writing.
(03:02):
The buyer signed a letter andmailed it to the seller, indicating
he did not want to buy the boat.
This letter satisfies the statute offrauds requirement and would be an
enforceable contract against the buyer."
In the first episode of this series,we revisited our issue statement
to a statement that identifies thespecific issue that we must determine
to answer the question in the prompt.
(03:25):
In Episode 2, we added a preliminarymini-IRAC regarding what law governs this
contract and revised our rule statement.
The first part of this answer simplystates: "A preliminary issue is
what law governs this contract.
The UCC governs all contractsfor the sale of goods.
Goods are things that aremovable at the time of formation.
(03:47):
Here, the boat is a good, becauseit is a movable thing, and therefore
the UCC governs this contract.
The next issue is whether thebuyer's letter to the seller is
a sufficient writing to satisfythe statute of frauds and enforce
the contract against the buyer.
The formation of an enforceable contractrequires mutual assent, consideration,
and no defenses to formation.
(04:09):
The statute of frauds isa defense to formation.
Under the UCC statute of frauds, contractsfor the sale of goods over $500 must
be in a writing that, [1] is sufficientto show that a contract was made; [2]
identifies the subject matter of thecontract; [3] includes all essential
terms, meaning a quantity term for theUCC; and [4] is signed by the party
(04:33):
against whom enforcement is sought."
Now with that, let's turn to thenext section of our IRAC - the
"A", or analysis section.
This section is your moneymaker.
It is often the section in whichyou can earn the most points
on a law school or bar exam.
And here is the good news (04:50):
Once you have a detailed correct rule statement,
your analysis almost writes itself.
All you have to do is walk througheach part of your rule statement and
use your facts to explain why thatelement is or is not satisfied here.
So, let's see how this works in practice,starting with the first two sentences
of our current analysis (05:10):
"Here, the buyer and seller had a conversation on
May 1st, where they agreed to the saleof the boat for $400,000 and agreed
that the seller would deliver the boatto buyer's house on May 4th, which the
buyer would then pay the purchase price.This agreement indicates a mutual assent
and consideration, and has no defensesto formation." The first sentence
(05:36):
of this analysis restates facts thatare relevant to establish formation.
And the second sentence makes two correctconclusions and one incorrect conclusion.
However, the analysis does not linkthe elements of contract formation to
the fact that establishes each element.
So let's break our conclusions aboutmutual assent and consideration
(05:57):
into separate sentences andlink each to the specific fact
that establishes each element:
" Here, mutual assent is satisfiedbecause the buyer and seller
agreed about the sale of the boatduring the May 1st conversation.
Consideration is also satisfiedbecause the agreement is for the
exchange of the boat from theseller for $400,000 from the buyer."
(06:23):
Notice how we walk through eachelement of our rule and link that
element to the fact that establishesthe element, using the word "because".
Also, as noted in our last episode,mutual assent and consideration are
easily established in this fact pattern.
So we are able to address each ofthose elements in a single sentence.
(06:44):
This gives us more time tofocus on the major issue in this
question - the statute of frauds.
Regarding the statute of frauds, ourcurrent answer states: "However,
because the boat is a moveable goodover $500, therefore the statute of
frauds requires the contract to be inwriting. The buyer signed a letter and
mailed it to the seller, indicatinghe did not want to buy the boat.
(07:07):
This letter satisfies the statute offrauds requirement and would be an
enforceable contract against the buyer."
The first sentence isn't transitionsentence that explains why
the statute of frauds applies.
The second sentence is another summary ofthe facts relevant to determine whether
the statute of frauds is satisfied.
And the third sentence isanother correct conclusion.
(07:29):
However, again, this analysis fails toexplain why that is the correct conclusion
by linking each part of our rule to thefact that establishes that requirement.
So, here's an example of how to do that:
"Regarding potential defenses toformation, the statute of frauds applies
because this contract is for the saleof a good - the boat - for over $500.
(07:52):
However, the buyer's signed letterto the seller may satisfy the statute
of frauds writing requirements.
First, the letter is sufficient toshow that a contract was formed because
it refers to the parties' agreement.
The letter also identifies thesubject matter of the contract
as the agreement that the buyerwould buy the boat for $400,000.
(08:13):
Third, the letter contains the onlyessential term for a UCC contract - a
quantity term - by referringto the seller's single "boat".
Forth, the letter is signed by theparty against whom enforcement is
sought, because the buyer signed theletter and the seller is now trying to
enforce the contract against the buyer."
Now, by linking the statute of fraudswriting requirements to the factual
(08:37):
detail that establishes each requirement,we added the "why" to our analysis.
In other words, now our analysisexplains why the buyer's letter
satisfies the statute of frauds.
This is the kind of analysis thatprofessors and bar graders love.
This is how you can earn the mostpoints on any exam, explaining
(08:57):
why you reached your conclusion.
And that wraps up Part 3 of our"Legal Writing Makeover" series - how
to fix your analysis section.
We hope that this episode helps youunderstand how to write a high scoring
analysis section by explaining why.
In Part 4 of our "Legal Writing Makeover",we will finish this series by adding
a final conclusion to our answer.
(09:20):
If you enjoyed this episode of theLaw School Toolbox podcast, please
take a second to leave a review andrating on your favorite listening app.
We'd really appreciate it.
And be sure to subscribeso you don't miss anything.
If you have any questions orcomments, please don't hesitate
to reach out to myself or Alisonat lee@lawschooltoolbox.com or
alison@lawschooltoolbox.com.
Or you can always contactus via our website contact
(09:41):
form on LawSchoolToolbox.com.
Thanks for listening, and we'll talk soon!
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!