Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Irac 4
Irac 4
Application: Sam falsely communicated information orally about pam to andy (a third
party). This information has caused the third party (Andy) to stop associating and dealing
with pam and caused pam economic harm. As well as lowed her estimation to andy and his
staff. Pam can prove that sam slandering her resulted in her damages as andy stopped
dealing with her.
IRAC
Issue: Is Sam liable to Pam for intentional interference with economic relations?
There was a contract between the plaintiff and the third party
The defendant knew of the contract
The defendant improperly induced the third party to breach the contract or made
performance of the contract impossible
There was injury to the plaintiff
Application: Sam intentionally interfered with Pam and Brent’s contractual relations and
intentionally severed it causing pam economic harm. Sam knew prior to approaching pam
about the contract present between them. He improperly induced brentt to breach the
contract by telling him that he can give him a better offer at marks firm, pams biggest
competitor. This action caused pam to lose a 3 year contract with brentt causing her
economic harm and injury.
Conclusion Sam is liable to pam for International interference with economic relations.
IRAC
Intent of intrusion
Forcefully entering
Application: pam found sam lurking in her front yard uninvited, and unlawfully. Sam knew he
was trespassing on her property and refused to leave when pam asked him to.
Irac
Rule: an act done by one person which causes, and is intended to cause, to an apprehension
of an immediate and harmful or offensive touching or contact with his person is an assult
Application Although pam raising her bat to hit sam meets the elements of assult as it was a
threat of immediate or offensive contact as well as the apprehension of imminent harm.
Sam was trespassing unlawfully on her property, after which he refused to leave when pam
asked him to. Thus her assault to sam qualifies as self-defence