Question

Brian owns and manages an apartment building. Danny and Brian sign a lease under which Danny agrees to rent an apartment for $4,000 per month plus all utility costs associated with the apartment. The lease is for a 3 year term, although Danny can terminate the lease provided he gives three months’ notice. One year into the term, Danny asks Brian to sign a modification to the lease that indicates that the utility bills are to be split equally between them. The property market is bad for building owners, and Brian is afraid that, if he does not agree, Danny will give notice and terminate the lease in three months. Therefore, Brian agrees, and both parties sign a document that states that for the remaining 2 years of the lease, the utility costs for the property will be split equally between the parties. The next year, the property market has recovered, and Brian wants to stop paying half of the utility costs.

Discuss, using the IRAC method, whether Brian is legally required to continue to pay half the utility costs. Would your answer be different if the modification had explicitly stated that, in return for Brian agreeing to share the utility costs, Danny would promise not to terminate the lease for the remaining two years?

Answer 1

Discuss, using the IRAC method, whether Brian is legally required to continue to pay half the utility costs.

The basic structure is: Issue, Rule, Analysis, and Conclusion, here Brian initially follows the deed but after some time which he refuses, shows deliberately his state of mind in which he disagrees to pay the utility bill as he tries to follow the wrong practise. Eventually the positive part of this deed is this that Danny indirectly support the Brian’s unsual approach for not following the deed.

Here analysis is this that Brian is not abiding any law in context of making this deed progress in positive manner.

Conclusion of this issue is this that Danny should refuse his wills and should take litigation help to make him (Brian) aware the consequences of this playful act.

Would your answer be different if the modification had explicitly stated that, in return for Brian agreeing to share the utility costs, Danny would promise not to terminate the lease for the remaining two years?

Answer : Eventually this is encouraging the wrong practice if Danny supports Brian playful activity. "When faced with a fairly simple legal problem, all the IRAC elements may fit into a single paragraph. At other times you may want to divide the IRAC elements. For example, you might wish to set out the issue and the rule of law in one paragraph, the analysis for the plaintiff in a second paragraph, and the analysis for the defendant and your conclusion in a third paragraph, and the transitional phrase or sentence in the first sentence of yet a fourth paragraph."