The FIRAC method
FIRAC is a structured way to answer a legal problem question. It takes a messy set of facts and turns them into a clear, reasoned argument that a marker can follow. The five steps run in order — Facts, Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion — and JuriLoci coaches you through exactly this sequence, one step at a time.
FIRAC, IRAC, ILAC? You may meet the method under different names. IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) is the classic version; FIRAC simply makes the Facts step explicit, which matters in problem questions where sorting the material facts is half the battle. ILAC swaps “Rule” for “Law”. They are the same discipline — identify the law, then reason from the facts to a conclusion.
The five steps
Facts
Identify and sort the facts. Separate what is legally material from what is mere background.
How to do it: Read the problem twice. List the facts that could change the legal outcome — who did what, when, and the relationships between the parties. A fact is material if changing it would change your answer. Set aside detail that carries no legal weight.
How to write it: “The material facts are that …” — a tight, relevant summary, not a retelling of the whole scenario.
Common mistake: Copying out the entire story. Markers reward the facts that matter, not a paraphrase of the question.
Issue
Pin down the precise legal question(s) the facts raise — the point the court actually has to decide.
How to do it: Turn the dispute into a question. If the problem raises more than one issue, list each separately and number them — you will work through each in turn. Keep issues narrow: name the specific element, requirement or principle in dispute, not the whole area of law.
How to write it: Phrase it as a question: “The issue is whether …”
Common mistake: Issues that are too broad (“is the contract valid?”) when the real fight is over one element, such as whether there was consensus.
Rule
State the law that governs the issue — the statute, common-law principle or case authority, expressed as a test or set of elements.
How to do it: Give the actual legal rule, then its authority. If the rule has elements or a test, state them — these become the checklist you apply in the next step. Cite the source from your prescribed materials (a section of an Act, or the case that lays the rule down).
How to write it: “In terms of [authority], the rule is … The requirements are (a) …, (b) …, (c) …”
Common mistake: Naming a case but never stating the rule it establishes. A case name on its own is not law — the ratio is.
Application
Apply the rule to these facts. This is the heart of the answer and where most of the marks are.
How to do it: Take each element of the test from the Rule step and match it to the facts: is it satisfied or not, and why? Use the facts you isolated in the Facts step as your evidence. Where the facts are open to argument, argue both sides before coming down on one.
How to write it: “Applying this to the facts: element (a) is met because …; element (b) is not met because …”
Common mistake: Restating the law, then restating the facts, but never connecting the two. Application means linking each element to a specific fact.
Conclusion
Reach a clear answer that directly responds to the issue you framed.
How to do it: State the outcome that follows from your application. If there were several issues, give a conclusion for each. Be decisive — even where the law is uncertain, say which way it most likely falls and why.
How to write it: “Therefore, … ” — an answer to the exact question asked in the Issue step.
Common mistake: A conclusion that introduces new law, dodges the question, or contradicts the application that came before it.
From stating the rule to making an argument
A weak answer simply states a rule. A strong answer builds it in three moves — first the principle, then the authority it rests on, then the application to the facts. That sequence is what turns a bare rule statement into legal reasoning, and it is where marks are won or lost across the Rule and Application steps.
Principle
State the legal proposition in general terms — the rule as a statement of law, before you touch the facts. “Our law requires that …”
Authority
Anchor the principle to its source — the section of the Act, or the case that lays it down. A principle without authority is just an opinion.
Application
Show how the principle, so grounded, operates on these facts. This is the move from law to answer — and the part markers reward most.
“A display of goods is an invitation to treat.”
A bald assertion. No authority, no link to the facts — the marker cannot tell whether you understand the law or are guessing.
Principle: a display of goods with a price is generally an invitation to treat, not an offer. Authority: as established in [the case or section from your materials]. Application: the shop’s window notice was therefore an invitation to treat, so Thandi’s “I’ll take it” was the offer — which the owner was free to refuse.
The same rule, but grounded and applied. This reads as reasoning, not assertion.
A worked example
A short illustration of the structure in action. Notice how each step builds on the one before it.
Scenario: Thandi sees a notice in a shop window: “Radio for sale — R500.” She walks in and says, “I’ll take it.” The shop owner refuses to sell, saying the price was a mistake. Thandi argues they have a binding contract.
- F The shop displayed a radio with a price; Thandi said she would take it; the owner then refused. (The display and Thandi’s response are the material facts.)
- I The issue is whether the shop’s window display was an offer that Thandi accepted, creating a contract — or merely an invitation to do business.
- R A contract requires offer and acceptance. The rule is that a display of goods with a price is generally an invitation to treat, not an offer; the customer makes the offer, which the seller may accept or refuse. (State the authority from your materials.)
- A Applying this: the window notice was an invitation to treat, not an offer. Thandi’s “I’ll take it” was therefore the offer. The owner had not yet accepted, and refused — so the requirement of acceptance is not met.
- C Therefore no contract was formed, and Thandi cannot compel the owner to sell.
This is only a worked example of the structure. Always state and cite the actual rule and authority from your own prescribed materials.
Tips for the exam
- Answer the question that was asked — re-read it and make sure your Conclusion responds to it.
- Spend the most time on Application. That is where the marks are, and where weak answers go thin.
- Deal with each issue in its own FIRAC cycle rather than mixing several issues together.
- State the test or elements in the Rule step, then tick them off one by one in Application.
- Where the facts are genuinely uncertain, argue both sides — then commit to the stronger one.
- Cite authority from your prescribed materials; never invent a case or a section number.
Try it on a real question
The best way to learn FIRAC is to use it. Start a coaching session and work through one.