okay I want to talk to you about a foundational Concept in business law and really this is a principle an idea that I hope is going to be applicable for you in all sorts of circumstances in life and in writing and test taking and that is the Iraq principle okay this is something I learned in law school that I've used in many times when I've had to take exams when I've had to write about a topic I know nothing about and you're sitting there and you're stumped about what to what to say and how to make a paragraph out of something so Iraq is just a way to organize your thoughts it's a way to um organize a a written paragraph or two in a very uh logical manner so Iraq is I a issue rule analysis conclusion issue rule analysis conclusion these are four parts that um really make up a logical framework for discussing any topic and it works really well in the law if you ever go to law school it's how they'll expect you to respond to exams when I took the the um entrix exam for business school uh I use the irac on the essay portion and it worked really well uh really successfully again it's something I've used often and I'd recommend using it in other exams too so issue rule analysis conclusion we start with the issue and the issue is really what is this case about and you summarize the case and the question in one sentence it's always a question what is happening what is this what is at the core of this debate that we're talking about so the issue is your question it's one sentence rule a lot of people get this wrong because they think it's the ruing like the conclusion the rule is just principles what principles is the case looking at usually the case is citing some past cases remember that term precedent it's citing past precedent from which to judge this situation upon so we're looking at past rules from which to guide our current decision and then we're going to apply the facts of this case in the analysis the analysis section is usually three four five sentences applying the facts to the rules so what's at hand what are the rules let's apply the facts the rules and then draw one conclusion a final one sentence now the meat of the Iraq principle is in the analysis analysis is about having a debate I like to see someone going back and forth here and really thinking through all the options well if this then this what if there's an alternative okay so issue rule analysis conclusion I want to walk you through one with the Pearson V post so in Pearson V post remember this is the case where where um uh post is after a fox pursuing a fox hunting a fox in this beach and Mr Pearson comes in and tries to um well takes the fox away kills the fox before post can get there post is naturally quite upset because he's been in Pursuit for a while so what's the issue the issue is whether when somebody Begins the pursuit of an animal are they the ones who have possession to it when does possession begin okay when does possession of an animal begin that could we could summarize it that simply okay now what are the different rules that we're looking at well there are several that this case sites one of the most famous is the Justinian Code where um talks about Pursuit is not enough right so pursuit of an object or an animal is not enough to create possession that's one of your rules another rule that the case cites is that to possess a wild animal this is from the puff andorf case to possess a wild animal you must have actual Corporal possession you must have the animal in your hands to say that you possess it these are our rules we finished our rule section we've listed one rule two rules there may be a few rule few other rules in this case that you'd want to list now we move to the analysis remember the issue what's at hand what are the rules let's apply the facts to the rules so what are some of our facts well we know that begun this the pursuit of this fox he'd been in pursuit of it for quite a while we know that he didn't yet have possession but he'd been hunting it for quite quite some time and then Pearson comes in and kills the fox um hunts it for takes it himself so we have these cases we have the Justinian laws we have the uh puffendorf case well we know here that that post is is in Pursuit he he's he's after the fox he's begun Pursuit so that doesn't under this rule does not amount to possession does not give him the right even on simple Pursuit doesn't give him the right we know that uh he does not have actual Corporal possession the Fox is still out somewhere in the wild even though he's hunting it uh he doesn't have it in his hand so he's he doesn't have possession when we look at this um it's it's seems pretty clear that there is no rule that we can rely on to say that post should have possession of this fox uh just simply we we can't apply the facts to any other um any other scenario now was Mr Pearson annoying was he U should he have done this probably not I mean it's it seems to violate some kind of hunting ethic right but there's no law against it there's nothing there's no legal recourse in this matter so that's an analysis a very long analysis you wouldn't have to go that long but you can see the kind of debate we have it's applying the facts to the case okay what's our conclusion the conclusion is simply post did not have Corporal possession he did not have actual possession he was in mere Pursuit and pursuit does not Mount to actual possession that's it we finish is a very logical way issue rule analysis conclusion I write them all as they can be in one paragraph but I like to do them in sort of separate paragraphs with each of those four being its own line item I think it's a very logical way to to analyze the law and help us break it down we're going to use this framework as we go and um I want you to use on the exams too and and you'll be you'll be writing out irax for cases um as we continue in this class and so hope you can come back to this one if you have questions about how to do an Iraq uh and um it's it's I again I think a useful tool for um for the future as you write as you write essays as you write exams and and you get in those times where you have to write about something and you need a logical framework within which to do it fall back on Iraq