Issue-spotting sweep: parties, duties, breaches, remedies

Don’t marry the first claim you see — sweep the facts for every theory they support, then plead in the alternative.

The idea

Behind IRAC is a habit: before analysing anything, take an inventory. List every party and relationship, ask what duty each one owed (from a contract, from tort, from a statute, from a position of trust), find where it was breached, and name the remedy that follows.

The same facts almost always support more than one theory. A defective renovation can be both a broken contract and negligence. Good issue-spotting generates all of them — then you plead in the alternative instead of betting everything on one claim.

The fact pattern

Nadia hired Omar’s firm to rebuild her café. Omar’s lead engineer, Priya, also sits on Nadia’s advisory board. Something has gone wrong. Pick a defendant, toggle the facts you can prove, and watch which causes of action Nadia can actually plead.

View claims against — the duty source changes with the relationship

Facts you can prove — toggle to open or kill theories

Start with the default facts, then toggle one at a time. Notice how a single fact can open two theories at once.

General common-law principles for issue-spotting practice — elements and defenses vary by ; not legal advice.

How it works

Run the same four-step sweep on every fact pattern, in order:

1. Parties   List everyone + every relationship between them.
2. Duties    For each pair, what duty exists, and from where?
             contract | tort (duty of care) | statute | fiduciary
3. Breach    Where was each duty broken? Point to the fact.
4. Remedy    What does a breach of THAT duty get you?
             contract  -> expectation damages
             negligence-> compensatory damages
             defamation-> reputational damages
             fiduciary -> disgorgement / damages

Then: generate EVERY theory the facts support and plead
in the alternative. One fact (a signed writing, a false
public statement) can open or close a whole cause of action.

The relationship decides which duties even exist. Omar’s firm signed the contract, so contract is on the table against it; Priya didn’t sign, so it isn’t against her — but her advisory seat makes her a fiduciary, a duty Omar’s arm’s-length firm never had.

When to use it

The sweep earns its keep when…	The trade-off / limit
A fact pattern is dense and you must not miss a claim — exams, intake, demand letters.	It generates candidates; it doesn’t rank them. You still weigh strength and cost.
Several parties and relationships overlap.	More theories means more to plead and defend — prune weak ones before filing.
You want alternatives in case one element fails at trial.	Pleading everything can dilute focus; lead with your strongest theory.

Watch out for

Marrying the first claim. Spotting “breach of contract” and stopping means you miss the parallel negligence, statutory, or equitable theory the same facts hand you.
Skipping a party. The strongest defendant is often the one you didn’t list — the fiduciary, the employer, the third party who published the statement.
Assuming a duty exists. Every claim needs a duty source. No contract, no contract claim — even if someone behaved badly. Trace each duty to its origin.
Forgetting defenses that kill an element. Truth defeats defamation; a missing signed writing can defeat a contract within the Statute of Frauds. One fact closes the theory.
Naming a wrong without a remedy. If no recognised remedy follows, it isn’t a cause of action yet — keep it as context, not a claim.

Worked example

An interviewer gives a messy set of facts and asks, “What claims do you see?” A weak candidate blurts the first one. A strong one narrates the sweep: “Parties are Nadia, Omar’s firm, and Priya. Nadia and the firm have a contract, so I’d look at breach — but I’d also plead negligence in the alternative, since the defective work breaches a duty of care independent of the contract. If Omar publicly and falsely called Nadia a fraud, that’s defamation. And because Priya sat on the advisory board, she’s a fiduciary — if she steered the contract to a company she owns, that’s breach of fiduciary duty, with disgorgement as the remedy.” That answer shows the interviewer a system, not a lucky guess.

Check yourself

You’ve established a solid breach-of-contract claim against Omar’s firm for the defective build. What’s the disciplined next move?

Nadia wants to sue Priya for breach of contract because Priya was “in charge of the build.” Your read?