Fix a Disorganized Legal Memo

Edit a legal memo that buries its conclusion, mixes analysis with facts, and lacks signposting.

Your Task

This legal memo is disorganized — it buries the answer, mixes fact recitation with analysis, and lacks clear structure. Edit it to follow best practices for legal memo organization.

What to fix:

Lead with the answer — Don't make the reader wade through facts to find the bottom line
Separate facts from analysis — Mixing them makes both harder to follow
Add signposting — Use topic sentences that tell the reader where you're going
Use point-first paragraphs — Start each paragraph with its conclusion, then support it

Edit the Text

Improve clarity, conciseness, and legal precision

Your Edited Version

On March 3, the client entered into a lease agreement with Westfield Properties for commercial space at 450 Main Street. The lease was for a five-year term beginning April 1. Section 12 of the lease contains a force majeure clause that excuses performance when "circumstances beyond the reasonable control of either party" prevent performance. On June 15, a fire caused by faulty wiring in an adjacent unit severely damaged the leased premises, making them uninhabitable for an estimated four months.

The client wants to know if they can terminate the lease. Several cases in this jurisdiction have addressed force majeure clauses in commercial leases. In Roberts v. Gateway Plaza (2020), the court held that structural damage from external causes triggered the force majeure clause, but only when repairs would take longer than six months. The court distinguished temporary from permanent impairment. In Chen v. Harbor Properties (2021), the court found that a three-month closure due to environmental contamination did not constitute a force majeure event because the landlord offered alternative space during remediation.

There's also the issue of whether the fire constitutes a "circumstance beyond reasonable control." The wiring was in an adjacent unit, not the leased premises. However, fire is generally recognized as a qualifying event. The client should also consider that the estimated repair time is four months, which is less than the six-month threshold in Roberts but longer than the three months in Chen.

I think the client probably cannot terminate but may be able to suspend rent payments during the repair period. The force majeure clause likely applies to excuse performance temporarily, but the four-month timeline probably isn't long enough to justify full termination under the Roberts framework.

Complete the exercise and submit for Write.law feedback

Fix a Disorganized Legal Memo

Your Task

Edit the Text

Writing Assistant

Ask me anything about legal writing

Edit the Text