Using the IRAC rule law - Essay Example

Introduction IRAC is a law acronym that stands for issue, rule, application and conclusion. This paper is going to solve a case using the IRAC rule law (Reid, 107). Q 1 Issue The police stood and watched as civil unrest by the public was taking place. Due to this Eric’s pharmacy called VCS was looted and burnt to the ground as police stood 1000 feet away. This was also evidenced from the TV footage that showed the police doing nothing to prevent the locals from destroying property. They only reacted four hours after the whole area was looted and burnt down and that is when the mayor asked for the governor’s assistance. Question is, is the state liable for Eric’s loss over his pharmacy being vandalized and burnt down and is he liable for insurance compensation? Rule People always assume that riots and vandalism are not liable for compensation by insurance and the police are also not liable. However, According to commercial property coverage guide a riot is “any disturbances of the public’s peace by more than three people helping each other execute destruction of property and people by use of force and aggression in an unlawful manner” (Marcinko, 220). Analysis According to this rule of law it seems the peoples assumptions are wrong yet the law states otherwise. The confusion here is that for the state to be liable for compensating Eric it must be first be investigated to find out the cause and intention. This is because for the state to compensate Eric, the law states that “the loss of his pharmacy must be accidental as intentional damages and loss and criminals acts are not liable for compensation” (Marcinko, 184). According to Erick’s case, the people who looted, vandalized and burnt his pharmacy do not know him personally to be doing the damage intentionally nor are they doing it to cause damage for him. Secondly, the looting and vandalism was not done by Erick himself but a rowdy group thus the insurance is liable for compensation. Conclusion The state is liable for compensation in Erick’s case since the police stood by and did not prevent the rioters from vandalizing and burning his pharmacy. Therefore, Erick must be compensated for losses incurred in his shop. Q 2 Issue Eric’s pharmacy company VCS was to be delivered pharmaceuticals by Tanya who owns a pharmaceutical delivery business. On the fateful unrest day, Tanya’s workers who deliver the products arrived two hours late due to flat tires problems. On arrival, they were confronted by the looters while inside VCS shop, moreover, their delivery truck was looted and destroyed. The following week on Monday, Erick received a demand letter and an invoice for the delivered pharmaceuticals, and the destroyed truck costing 100,000 and 400,000 dollars respectively. This was meant to cover costs as if Erick had received the goods and the truck as if he had destroyed the truck too. All this happened because of the rioters and the delivery guys, Thomas and Jackie’s’ delays yet they still sent a letter to Erick to pay for the damages. In total Erick is being demanded by Tanya and TPD to pay 500,000 dollars which is a huge amount. Question is, can Erick sue Tanya for harassment of creditors? Rule Harassment by creditors is a common occurrence in the society. According to the law, for a case to be considered harassment by creditors some of the of the signs are, constantly calling and threatening the debtor, threatening and stalking them over social media like Facebook, telling others about his debts, embarrassing the debtor in public and lying about the court working on the case. However, in this case the sign that was used in this case was “they must be giving an impression that not paying the debt is a criminal offence” (Marcinko, 294). This is the kind of impression TPD gave Erick when they sent the invoice and demand letter. A demand letter can be defined as a letter written in a forceful and threatening tone depicting that the creditor does not want to listen to anything and just wants their money paid without any thought of the debtor. In this case Erick should not be considered a debtor since the pharmaceutical goods had not been delivered yet. Furthermore, the delivery man was late and did not come at the intended time thus that was a mistake on their part. Analysis According to the law, the impression that TPD gave Erick made it seem like it was a criminal offence if he did not pay back. This is evidenced by the demand letter since sending and invoice alone would not have counted as harassment by creditor if it was done in the right manner. However, TPD sent a demand letter yet they know that the looting happened in the area, they had not made the delivery yet, they did not arrive at the stipulated time since the delivery man was late due to flat tires thus the unrest caught them in the VCS. Maybe if the TPD delivery man had come in time Erick would have been liable to pay Tanya and TPD since Erick would have received the goods and signed for them making him liable for their payment. This is because the he would have signed for the goods and they would have been looted in his hands and in his care thus making him liable. Furthermore, they know that Erick himself did not destroy the pharmaceuticals nor the delivery truck neither did he incite the looters to loot the delivery truck and pharmaceuticals. More so, Erick himself has suffered a huge loss being that his pharmacy shop was vandalized, looted and burnt down thus he is suffering huge financial losses too. Conclusion Since Erick did not in any way instigate the unrest nor participated in any of the looting and vandalizing, for TPD to send him an invoice accompanied by a demand letter means that they are implying that it is an offence for Erick not to pay up. Therefore, Erick should sue TPD for harassment by creditors before they sue him falsely. The invoice was okay but the demand letter was the thing that made TPD look like they were harassing Erick yet he did not even receive the goods and he did not destroy their truck. In addition, if someone else’s asset is destroyed in another person’s property by another person altogether then the owner of the property is not liable for the payment of the damages caused on the asset. This is because neither did he not do it himself nor did he incite or send other people to destroy it. Therefore no malicious and intentionally damage is done by the property owner just like in Erick case. Furthermore, in this case the people who caused the damage were rioters in unrest. Q3 Severability clause This clause means that if a contract has parts which are illegal and thus cannot be enforced then the remaining legal parts are still valid. The importance of inclusion of this is that the contract still serves its purpose and is still binding. However, the exclusion of severability clause is the opposite meaning that if a contract is illegal in some parts then the whole contract is not valid and thus not binding. Attorneys Fees provision This term in a contract states the person who is liable to pay the attorney’s fees in case of a dispute or fall out. This is important since in the case where a contract is facing litigation both parties to the contract can refuse liability of paying the attorney thus is put to clear future misunderstandings. Force Majeure (Acts of God) provision This provision frees parties involved in a contract in cases of acts considered acts of God. These are acts which are unavoidable and uncontrollable like natural disasters like floods, riots and wars. Thereby, freeing the parties from and obligations stipulated in the contracts. Integration clause This clause states that a contract is considered complete and final as soon as the parties involved agreed and no one can say otherwise. It is important in that it prevents other un-involved parties to make adjustments or inclusions of other things in the contracts. References Marcinko, D. E. (2005). Insurance and risk management strategies for physicians and advisors: A strategic approach. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Reid, S. (2005). Legal writing for international students: A U.S. legal writing textbook for ESL/ESP students and practitioners of law and business. West Hartford, CT: Peconic Press. Read More