493: A Legal Writing Makeover (Part 4 – The Conclusion)

Welcome back to the Law School Toolbox podcast! This is the final 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 covered the issue statement, rule statement, and analysis section, and today we finish off with the conclusion.

In this episode we discuss:

• A review of a sample exam answer
• How to write a good conclusion 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/)
• 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 491: A Legal Writing Makeover (Part 3 – The Analysis Section) (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-491-a-legal-writing-makeover-part-3-the-analysis-section/)

Download the Transcript 
(https://lawschooltoolbox.com/episode-493-a-legal-writing-makeover-part-4-the-conclusion/)

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.com/). You can also sign up for our weekly podcast newsletter (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/get-law-school-podcast-updates/) to make sure you never miss an

Episode Transcript

Lee Burgess (00:02):
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 can 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,

(00:43):
and we'd love to hear from you.
And with that, let's get started.
Welcome back.
This episode is the fourth and final partof our "Legal Writing Makeover" series.
Our goal in this series is totransform a poorly written piece of

(01:03):
legal writing into a legal writingA+, one section of IRAC at a time.
Today we are focusing on the fourth andfinal part of IRAC - the conclusion.
So let's recap oursituation one last time.
You were 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 stating, "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 (01:45):
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 (01:55):
"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

(02:18):
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 the seller had aconversation on May 1st, where they
agreed to the sale of the boat for$400,000 and agreed that the seller

(02:39):
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.

(02:59):
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 revised our issue statement to a
statement that identifies the specificissue that we must determine to

(03:20):
answer the question in the prompt.
In Episode 2, we added a preliminarymini-IRAC regarding what law governs this
contract and revised our rule statement.
And in our last episode, we usedour revised rule statement to
draft a high scoring analysis.
In particular, we linked ruleelements with the specific facts
that establish each element,using words such as "because".

(03:43):
Linking each part of the rule to adetail in the facts allowed us to
explain why our conclusion is correct.
All that is left is to wrap up ouranswer with a final sentence that, [1]
naturally flows from our analysis; and [2]directly responds to the question prompt.
Let's recap the first three parts ofour revised answer: "A preliminary

(04:05):
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.
Here, the boat is a good because itis 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

(04:26):
the contract against the buyer.
The formation of an enforceable contractrequires mutual assent, consideration,
and no defenses to formation.
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]

(04:50):
identifies the subject matter of thecontract; [3] includes all essential
terms, meaning a quantity term for theUCC; and [4] is signed by the party
against whom enforcement is sought.
Here, mutual assent is satisfied,because the buyer and seller
agreed about the sale of the boatduring the May 1st conversation.

(05:10):
Consideration is also satisfied,because the agreement is for the
exchange of the boat from theseller for $400,000 from the buyer.
Regarding potential defenses toformation, the statute of frauds applies
because this contract is for the saleof a good - the boat - for over $500.
However, the buyer's signed letterto the seller may not satisfy the

(05:32):
statute of frauds writing requirements.
First, the letter is sufficient to showthat 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.
Third, the letter contains the onlyessential term for a UCC contract - a

(05:53):
quantity term - by referringto the seller's single "boat".
Fourth, 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 let's add the cherry - aconclusion sentence.
Remember, our conclusion must, [1]naturally flow from our analysis; and [2]

directly respond to the question prompt: Is there an enforceable contract against (06:17):
undefined
the buyer for the sale of the boat?

Here's an example conclusion sentence: "Therefore, there is an enforceable (06:24):
undefined
contract against the buyer for the saleof the boat, because the buyer's letter
satisfies the statute of frauds writingrequirement." The first part of the
sentence meets the second requirementby directly answering the question.
The second part of the sentence relatesthis conclusion back to the major

(06:46):
issue we discussed in our analysis.
By doing so, this conclusion allowsthe grader to easily see that we
correctly answered the question andlogically follow how we got there.
A great last impression.
And that wraps up our four-part"Legal Writing Makeover" series.
If you enjoyed this episode of theLaw School Toolbox podcast, please

(07:08):
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 or comments,please don't hesitate to reach out to
Lee or Alison at [e-mail] [e-mail].
Or you can always contactus via our website contact
form on LawSchoolToolbox.com.

(07:29):
Thanks for listening, and we'll talk soon!