IPC Video Class

 

tort exam:- essay question answering

                                                IRAC

• Issue

• Rule

• Application

• Conclusion

First and foremost, Torts exams are all issue spotting...and the hypo's are filled with multiple torts. Use phrasing from the restatement of torts to state the rule. Also, read the question. If she asks you to be a judge and rule on something, make a decision!

Do her past exams under timed conditions. Most law school exams would be much easier if time wasn't an issue....If you think you're done early on a torts exam, I can confidently say you didn't spot all the issues....there are just SO many. 

USING THE I-R-A-C STRUCTURE IN WRITING EXAM ANSWERS:-

The IRAC method is a framework for organizing your answer to a business law essay question. The basic structure is: Issue, Rule, Analysis, and Conclusion. Using this simple framework for structuring your answer will ensure that you have written a complete answer. 

Issue:-

  Begin your answer by stating the issue presented by the essay question. Sometimes the question will provide the issue for you. If not, then ask: What is the legal question that, when answered, determines the result of the case? The issue should be stated in the form of a question in a specific, rather than general form: “Is there an agency relationship if there was no compensation paid?” would be an acceptable issue. “Will the plaintiff win?” would not be acceptable.
Note that the issue may be case specific, mentioning the parties’ names and specific facts of the case. Example: “Did Jones have an agency relationship with XYZ Corp. due to his acting on behalf of XYZ and following its instructions?” 

The issue can encompass all cases which present a similar question. Example: “Is an agency created whenever there is an employment relationship?” Most cases present one issue. If there is more than one issue to address, then you must write a separate IRAC analysis for each issue.

Rule:- 
 

The rule describes which law or test applies to the issue. The rule should be stated as a general principal, and not a conclusion to the particular case being briefed.

Example:

“An agency relationship is created when there is an agreement that the agent will act for the benefit of the principal at the principal’s direction or control regardless of whether compensation is paid” would be an acceptable rule. “The plaintiff was the defendant’s agent” would not be an acceptable rule. Do not use parties’ names or specific facts from the case.

Hint

Frequently, the rule will be the definition of the principle of law applicable in the case.

Example:

An agent may not use or disclose confidential information acquired through the agency absent an agreement to the contrary.

Analysis:-

  The analysis is the most important, and the longest, part of your answer. It involves applying the Rule to the facts of the problem or question. You should use the facts to explain how the rule leads to the conclusion. Discuss both sides of the case when possible.

Important:

   Do not merely state a conclusion without also stating reasons for it. A conclusion without reasons or explanation means that you have not used the rule and the facts to analyze the issue.

Hint:

The rule can be used as a guide in your discussion.

Example:

Suppose the issue is whether A is an independent contractor. Using the facts of the case, explain whether or not they fit into the definition of what is an independent contractor: “In this case, A was told by the foreman what to wear, how to operate the machine, and when to report to work each day, givin g her little control over the job.” If the rule is a test with multiple factors, then you must analyze each factor by pointing out how the facts do (or do not) fulfill each factor. 

Conclusion:-

 

The conclusion is your answer to the Issue. State the result of your analysis.

 

Examples:-

 

“Smith is liable for negligence” or “Therefore, no valid contract was formed between X and Y.” If there are multiple issues, there must be multiple conclusions as well.

1.4 Law of Crimes – I (I.P.C) S.V.University 1st semister Old Question Papers

1st semester:

1.4 Law of Crimes – I (I.P.C) 3 year LLB June 2007 page-1	1.4 Law of Crimes – I (I.P.C) 3 year LLB June 2007 page-2
1.4 Law of Crimes – I (I.P.C) 3 year LLB June 2008 page-1	1.4 Law of Crimes – I (I.P.C) 3 year LLB June 2008 page-2
1.4 Law of Crimes – I (I.P.C) 3 year LLB June 2009 page-1

Right of Private Defence (RPD) IPC Section 96 to 106

Right of Private Defence: IPC Sections 96 to 106 

These are the provisions available to any private individual to enable him to protect himself and his property from attacks, damage and destruction.

These are universal provisions and are available to everyone.

These are non-discriminatory, non-directional and omni-applicable.

Onus of proof lies on the person using the provisions or taking advantage of the provisions.

There is no obligation to

Difference between wrongful Wrongful re­straint (IPC Sec.339) and Wrongful confinement (IPC Sec. 340)

Difference between wrongful confinement (IPC Sec. 340) and wrongful re­straint (IPC Sec.339)

As regards difference between the two, wrongful confine­ments, in the first place, is a form of wrongful restraint. It is keeping a man-within limits out of which he wishes to go and has a right to go while wrongful restraint is keeping a man out of a place where he wishes to go, and has a right to be.

In the second place, in wrongful confinement a person is restrained from moving beyond a certain area within which he is confined, but in wrongful restraint he is free to move anywhere other than to proceed in a particular direction.

In other words, there is full restraint in the former, but only partial in the latter. And lastly, wrongful confinement is a more serious offence inasmuch as it prescribes punishment with imprisonment, simple, or rigorous, extending to one year, or fine up to Rs. 1,000, or both, while wrongful restraint is

I.P.C. Section 340 Wrongful confinement

Section 340 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860

 

Section 340: Wrongful confinement.-- Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said" wrongfully to confine" that person.

 

Illustration:

1. A causes Z to go within a walled space, and locks Z. Z is thus prevented from proceeding in any direction beyond the circumscribing line of wall. A wrongfully confines z.

 

2.A places men with firearms at the outlets of a building, and tells Z that they will fire at Z if Z attempts leave the building. A wrongfully confines Z. 

 

Wrongful Restraint (Section 339 of IPC)

Legal provisions regarding Wrongful Restraint under section 339 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Wrongful Restraint:

According to Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code, Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction, in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.

Exception:

The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning of this Section.

Illustration:

A obstructs a path along which Z has a right to pass, A not believing in good faith that he has a right to stop the path. Z is thereby prevented from passing. A wrongfully restrains Z.

Ingredients of Wrongful Restraint:

The essential ingredients of ‘Wrongful Restraint’ are:

Section 141 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860

          Sec:141 (Unlawful assembly) An assembly of five or more persons is designated an" unlawful assembly", if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is- First.- To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, 10[ the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State], or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or Second.- To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or Third.- To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offense; or Fourth.- By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or Fifth.- By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do. Explanation.- An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly. 

Difference Between Section 34 and 109 in I.P.C

 Difference Between Section 34 and 109 in I.P.C

Both Offences talk about crime by group of people. Such that if a crime is done by 2 or more people but less than 5 then section 149 is not applicable whereas section 34 is applicable on those offences.

A clear distinction is made out between common intention and common object is that common intention denotes action in concert and necessarily postulates the existence of a pre-arranged plan implying a prior meeting of the minds, while common object does not necessarily require proof of prior meeting of minds or pre-concert. Though there is a substantial difference between the two sections namely 34 and 149, they also to some extent overlap and it is a question to be determined

Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860

                                       Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860     

34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.- When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

Ingredients

(i) When an offence is sought to be proved only on circumstan­tial evidence, the allegations of common intention under section 34 normally cannot be established in absence of meeting of mind, the overt act of the accused, by their conduct, by using the weapons by their utterance of words; Santosh Desai v. State of Goa, (1997) 2 Crimes 666 (Bom).

(ii) In order to bring a case under section 34 it is not neces­sary that there must be a prior conspiracy or pre-meditation, the common

Difference between Culpable Homicide (IPC Sec.299) and Murder (IPC Sec.300)

Section 299 defines Culpable Homicide.

Whoever causes death by doing an act with,

1. Intention of causing death.
2. Intentionally causing bodily injury which is likely to cause death.
3. Doing act with knowledge that it is likely to cause death.

Section 300 defines Murder.

Whoever causes death by doing an act with.

1. Intention  of causing death.
2.  Causing such bodily injury as the offender knows it is likely to cause death of person.
3. Intentionally causing bodily injury which is sufficient to cause death.
4. Doing act with knowledge that it is  so imminently dangerous and in all probability causes death.

The question is when death of man is to be treated as culpable homicide or murder. there is thin difference between the murder and culpable homicide.why this difference is important because the culpable homicide carries maximum punishment of life imprisonment and  where as murder carries death sustenance. 2 and 3 Ingrident of 299 and 3 and 4 of 300 difference is on apparent. read the marked words the difference would be noticed. if the death of the person is more than survival then it is murder. On the other hand death is likely, means survival and death are in the same proportionate, then it is culpable homicide. it depends upon what kind of weapon offender has used and where the injuries are caused.suppose the offender has

IPC Lectures

Private defence (Sec 96 to Sec 106)

Private defence (Sec 96 - Sec 106 Penal Code) from Nurani Zahidi

ipc ppt

More PowerPoint presentations from aSGuest63413