ABOUT BUSINESS AND CORPORATE LAW QUESTION ANSWER 2022

Running Head: BUSINESS AND CORPORATE LAW 1
Business and Corporate Law
Student’s Name
Institution Affiliate
Date

2
Question 1 part A
On most occasions, the IRAC has been employed to simplify complicated terminologies,
fact patterns, and legal analysis. To make issues easy to understand context blocks of texts
arranged sequentially as per the legal analysis approach. This is considered helpful for several
reasons, one of which are to avoid confusions and misunderstandings caused by the legal
terminologies and complexities.
Jeff and Tina for formalities have signed the heads on the agreement specifying the terms
of negotiation for the exchange of Jeff's peach brandy business. In the process of preparation for
the formal contract, Tina wants to terminate the legal agreement due to her issues. She is no
longer sure anymore whether she wants to continue with buying the business (Anderson, 2015).
Jeff, on the other hands, feels like Tina wish to breach the contract and want to forward the case
to court if Tina does not change her mind. The reason why Jeff sues Tina if for non-fulfillment
of term 1 of the heads of agreement which is to buy the peach brandy business.
To determine whether Tina is legally bound to the head of agreement from Jeff, clearly,
the leader on the contract is considered as a non-binding agreement. It outlines the basis of the
terms of the tentative and proposed transaction. It only acts as the first step to initiate a legal
binding contract or agreement. The head-on agreement letter, the level to follow will require the
involvement of the attorney together with the accountant who will sign the binding contract
(Gostin, & Wiley, 2016). The question of whether the legal binding is a contract will depend on
the definition of terms of the contract document.
In the contract (term number 1), it is stated that Tina will buy the business (term number
7). From these terms, the head on the agreement is just a formal preparation of the contract is
based on the words that are worth accepting by Tina’s and Jeff’s solicitors (Hansmann, &

3
Kraakman, 2017). This means that the terms of agreements can still further be negotiated
formally between the respective two attorneys. However, the option to terminate the contract by
either party may not be available. To conclude, since there is no legal option for Tina to
terminate the agreement, she cannot terminate the contracts less; she loses the case in court to
Jeff. In other words, Tina is legally bound to the deal-making it hard to opt-out after that.
Therefore Jeff is right and can sue Tina for non-fulfillment of terms of the agreement.
Part B.
The conclusion to this case entirely depends on Tina’s position to be able to pay the full
finances that is $2.5 million. Failure to which she will not be eligible to buy the business creating
a room for her to opt-out of the contract without legal retardation legally. If the head on
agreement contained a section stating that, Tina shall only buy the business solely on obtaining
the specified financing in the contract. Later, it is proven that Tina does not have that amount;
she will not legally be tied to buying the business.
Question 2
According to the statements states in the subject, two characters are involved. Robert,
managing director of CheepCheep and Phil, managing director of Lights and Bright Company.
Also, as stated above, the purpose of Issue, Rule, Application/Analysis, and conclusion (IRAC)
in solving the misunderstandings between parties (Powers, 2017). It is a concept that is majorly
used by lawyers to settle complex cases.
Regarding the issues brought to IRAC are as a result of some legal ambiguity presented
against the facts. CheepCheep Company that was given a $75,000 loan as a result of friendship
from Light Bright for the payment of total order ordained. CheepCheep needs to pay back the
amount within the agreed contract terms. Should CheepCheep fail to honor the agreement, then