More than you probably wanted to know about Facts v. Law:
 
The following is modeled in part after a legal reasoning procedure
described in Burton, Introduction to Legal Reasoning (Little Brown). I use
it all the time (with some refinements for undergraduates) and it works
very well.
 
I have students pattern their answers after the often cited formula for the
adjudication process:
 
                     Rule x Facts = Decision
 
In a rule-based answer I require students to write out a complete statement
of the RULE of law broken down into its elements, and then explicitly match
the FACTS to each of these elements. The answer is concluded with a
DECISION. Each part is assigned points (usually 40% to a complete and
accurate rule,and 60% to the application and the decision) so they do not
often forget to include both the relevant facts and the rule.
 
        ////////////////////////// EXAMPLE ///////////////////////////
 
QUESTION. Based on these facts did Bob commit the crime of larceny? Use
rule-based reasoning.
 
ANSWER. The RULE OF LAW is
 
If (a) the defendant unlawfully takes and carries away
   (b) the property of another
   (c) with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession
Then, the defendant is guilty of larceny
 
RULE APPLIED TO THE FACTS (Each rule element must be used here):
 
Bob removed the books from Jane's desk without her consent and left the
room with them. This is an unlawful taking/carrying away of the books.
Element (a)
 
The books were owned by Jane. Element (b)
 
However, Bob just used the books to press a flower for Mabel, then put them
back on Jane's desk, so he obviously did not intend to permanently keep
them. Element (c)
 
DECISION:
 
Therefore, Bob has not committed the crime of larceny (but probably the
tort of conversion).
 
     /////////////////////////// End of Example //////////////////////////
 
Students find this reasoning structure useful to assist them in putting
together an essay answer that includes both facts and law. I also have
students use this matching technique (in abbreviated form) when responding
to questions orally in class. (Example: "Mary, what element of the rule
makes that fact you mentioned legally significant here?")
 
Caveat: You need to spend time in class demonstrating this method of
writing an answer--often a lot of time. Legal reasoning is important enough
to me that I budget course time for it. So what if I don't cover the all of
the intricacies of the privity of contract defense? I feel my students will
gain more from learning to write well reasoned answers than they will from
learning detailed rules of law they will soon forget.
 
I have other structures I require students to use for precedent-based and
policy-based answers. I will post those later if anyone is interested.
Right now I am swamped with semester-end madness.
 
Keith
 
Prof. Keith A. Maxwell                |  Voice:    206 756 3703
Legal and Ethical Studies in Business |  Fax:      206 756 3500
1500 N. Warner                        |  Internet: [log in to unmask]
University of Puget Sound             |---------------------------------------
Tacoma, WA 98416                      |  "Brevity is the soul of wit."
                                      |
                                      |