The document provides information about legal analysis and the rules for burglary. It discusses analyzing cases using the IRAC method by identifying the legal issue, stating the relevant rule, applying the facts to the rule, and reaching a conclusion. It then provides an example analysis of whether "Sneaky Sam" can be charged with burglary based on the traditional burglary rule.

1. LEGAL ANALYSIS RUlES
In this course, you will learn a little about legal analysis. You
will also be
learning legal rules and how to apply them to legal problems.
The information in this
document is intended to help you with class discussion and
preparing your writing
assignments.
I generally use the traditional rule for burglary to demonstrate
the analysis. Please note
that burglary is a state crime. This means that each state has
its own rule for burglary.
Before each state enacted its own burglary rule, we used the
“traditional” burglary rule
we adopted from English law. That rule reads as follows:
Burglary is breaking and entering a dwelling, at night, with
intent to commit a felony.
Most of the rules you will learn in this class consist of
elements. When we are dealing
with a rule that consists of elements, every element must be
established to “fit in the
box.” If we cannot establish one of the elements, then in the
case of burglary, for
example, there is no burglary. There may be some other crime,
but that is a separate
matter. We will cover some rules that consist of factors. A rule
consisting of factors
requires the court to “weigh” the factors in order to determine

2. whether the rule applies or
not. Generally one or two of the factors are given more weight
than the others.
Burglary is a rule that consists of elements. The elements of
the traditional burglary rule
are as follows:
Breaking and
Entering
a dwelling
at night
with intent to commit a felony
When dealing with a rule that consists of elements, it is
important that you understand
that you must establish that each and every element is present.
If one of the elements is
missing, that is, if you cannot find support to establish one of
the elements, then you
don’t have a burglary. I call this not fitting “in the box.” In
other words, if we cannot
establish each element of burglary, then the person is not “in
the burglary box.” They
may be in some other box. It is not your problem in this course
to figure out what box
they might be in. So, do not get caught up in the facts
presented and try to make the facts
fit the rule. What you must do is look at the rule, look at the
facts, come to a conclusion
as to whether there was a burglary and then state your position
and support it by applying
the facts to the rule.
Here is an example:

3. October 7, 2013 5:08 PM
Sneaky Sam is walking down a street in a nice neighborhood
late in the afternoon. As
much as possible, he is keeping close to the hedges and shadows
in the hopes of not being
seen or noticed by others in the immediate area. At one point
he turns onto a property
following the hedge and sticking close to it to get to the rear of
the property. The house
has a door with a glass window on the top half of the door and
solid on the bottom half.
He tries to open it. It is locked. He looks around and sees a
rock. He picks up the rock
and breaks the window, reaches in and unlocks the door. He
then walks into the house
and goes right to the dining room where there is a diamond-
studded goblet. He picks up
the goblet and leaves the house.
Question: Can Sam be charged with burglary (or in Prof.
Ellison speak, is Sam in the
burglary box)?
Example of a possible answer:
The rule for burglary requires that the person charged break
into a home. Sam did this
when he reached down, picked up the rock and broke the glass
on the door and OPENED
it. It also requires that he enter. The facts support the
conclusion that he entered because
after breaking the glass he reached in through the opening,
unlocked the door and walked

4. into the house. The rule requires that the defendant break and
enter into a dwelling. He
entered a house. A house is a dwelling. The acts must take
place at night. This element
cannot be established because the problem states that he did
this in the afternoon. Even
though all other elements of burglary can be established
including the last element, that
he did all of these things with the intent to commit a felony –
steal the goblet – because
he did not do so at night, under the traditional burglary rule
there was no burglary.
Now, you may not like this result. But what you are charged
with doing here is to
provide a rule and apply the rule to the facts. You must then
come to a conclusion. You
must support your conclusion with both the correct rule and
application of the rule to the
facts presented in the problem. You may NOT, NOT, NOT
change the rules or the facts.
In other words, don’t become result oriented and be more
interested in making Sam pay
for what he did than you are in the analysis you are required to
provide.
For those of you who may be mentally objecting to the
traditional burglary rule and
wondering how this could be the rule, remember that it is the
traditional rule and as far as
I know, no longer the rule anywhere in the U.S. We have
instead the “modern” burglary
rule. Again, this is defined state by state, but generally, the
modern rule, is something
like this: unauthorized entry into a structure with intent to
commit a felony. The rule no

5. longer requires a breaking. In other words, if you enter some
place that you are not
authorized to enter, that satisfies that requirement of the rule.
It need not be a dwelling.
Most states use the term “structure.” In other words,
unauthorized entry into a structure -
It does not have to be at night, it can be at any time. If the
person breaks something to
October 7, 2013 5:08 PM
enter, that is just fine – all the better – but breaking in is not
required any longer. Florida
also has the crime of burglary of a conveyance. What is that? I
leave it to you to find
out!
I hope this helps you understand what legal analysis should
look like. What I am looking
for is for you to be able to justify/support/backup, your
conclusions with rules and
analysis.
Now, you must not forget to consider exceptions to rules,
defenses or special rules. So,
when you begin tackling problems, make sure you have read
everything in the text about
the rule so that you are aware of any exceptions and defenses
that might apply.
The example I have set out above follows the analysis law
students are required to follow.
We call it IRAC.*

6. I = the legal issue – burglary, contracts, specifically, agreement
etc.
R = the rule of law that applies – e.g. burglary
A = application of the facts to the rule, or call it analysis, your
analysis of the problem
C = conclusion – result. In other words, can he be charged with
burglary? Is there a
K? (remember the letter K is used for the word “contract.” If
you are going to law
school, you will learn that right away.)
* Some schools today, use FIRAC – where the letter “F” stands
for the facts
So, first you must look for the rule, then for possible exceptions
and defenses or special
rules. Once you have those, then decide what the outcome
should be and demonstrate
why this should be the outcome by applying your facts to the
rule.
Any answers I post are merely suggested answers. It is not
necessary for you to follow a
particular format as long as you provide me with the
information I am seeking. However,
I strongly recommend that you apply the rule in the order of the
elements, in other words,
start with the first element and proceed down the line. Don’t
start with the last element or
in the middle. This will not always be easy for you to do
because sometimes you will see
the problem element right away and want to go directly to it
instead of starting at the
beginning. Unfortunately, not applying the rule in the order of
its elements will very
likely result in an error in your analysis.

7. You may wish, though, to set out the complete rule first, and
then go through the analysis
but how you present your responses is strictly up to you.
I cannot stress enough that you make sure you consider any
defenses there may be and
any exceptions that may apply.
October 7, 2013 5:08 PM
WRITING ASSIGNMENT I
BUL 4221
INSTRUCTIONS: This writing assignment must be typed. It
must be turned in on time.
You may use your text to answer the questions. Your answer
should thoroughly discuss
the law and any applicable exceptions. Please do NOT discuss
every rule you have
learned that even remotely applies to the facts. Study the
problem, determine what the
issues are and what rules apply. Make sure you answer the
question(s) asked and provide
support for your conclusions in the form of analysis. Submit
your responses via
Blackboard per the instructions there. Try to keep your answers
short BUT complete.
1. Garvey owned four speedboats named Porpoise, Priscilla,
Providence, and
Prudence. On April 2, Garvey made written offers to sell the
four boats in the

8. order named for $4,200 each to Caldwell, Meens, Smith, and
Braxton,
respectively, allowing ten days for acceptance. For each
scenario, discuss
whether a contract formed, why or why not? Remember to
back up your
statements with rules and analysis.
(a) Five days later, Caldwell received notice from Garvey that
he had contracted
to sell Porpoise to Montgomery. The next day, April 8, Caldwell
notified
Garvey that he accepted Garvey's offer.
(b) On the third day, April 5, Meens mailed a rejection to
Garvey which reached
Garvey on the morning of the fifth day. But at 10:00 A.M. on
the fourth day,
Meens sent an acceptance by telegram to Garvey, who received
it at noon on
the same day.
(c) Smith, on April 3, replied that she was interested in buying
Providence but
declared the price asked appeared slightly excessive and
wondered if, perhaps,
Garvey would be willing to sell the boat for $3,900. Five days
later, having
received no reply from Garvey, Smith, by letter, accepted
Garvey's offer and
enclosed a certified check for $4,200.
(d) Braxton was accidentally killed in an automobile accident
on April 9. The
following day, the executor of Braxton's estate mailed an
acceptance of

9. Garvey's offer to Garvey.
2. Alpha Rolling Mill Corporation, by letter dated June 8,
offered to sell
Brooklyn Railroad Company 2,000 to 5,000 tons of fifty-pound
iron rails
upon certain specified terms, adding that, if the offer was
accepted, Alpha
Corporation would expect to be notified prior to June 20.
Brooklyn Company,
on June 16, by telegram, referring to Alpha Corporation's offer
of June 8,
directed Alpha Corporation to enter an order for 1,200 tons of
fifty-pound iron
rails on the terms specified. The same day, June 16, Brooklyn
Company, by
October 7, 2013 5:05 PM
letter to Alpha Corporation, confirmed the telegram. On June
18, Alpha
Corporation, by telegram, declined to fill the order. Brooklyn
Company, on
June 19, telegraphed Alpha Corporation: “Please enter an order
for 2,000 tons
rails as per your letter of the eighth. Please forward written
contract. Reply.”
In reply to Brooklyn Company's repeated inquiries regarding
whether the
order for 2,000 tons of rails had been entered, Alpha denied the
existence of
any contract between Brooklyn Company and itself.
Thereafter, Brooklyn
Company sued Alpha Corporation for breach of contract.

10. Decision?
3. On April 14, 1994, Bill Shaw, a retired policeman, offered to
sell Thurgood
his 1965 Mustang convertible for $1,000. Thurgood responded,
“That’s a
ridiculous price for a thirty year old car – forget it!” Later,
Thurgood told a
friend about the offer, and the friend tells him the car is worth
at least $3,500.
Thurgood immediately telephones Shaw and says, “I’ve
reconsidered and I
accept your offer.” Shaw says, “Forget it. The price is now
$3,500.” If
Thurgood sues Shaw for breach of contract, will he be
successful?
October 7, 2013 5:05 PM