4.10 A. THE
CONTRACT CLAIM — GENERALLY BILATERAL CONTRACTS model jury charge
NOTE TO JUDGE
In
preparing the 1998 revisions to this charge, the Committee patterned much of
its work on Robert E. Kehoe, Jr.’s two volume treatise entitled Jury Instructions for Contract Cases (Comerford &
Boyd 1995). The instructions contained
in the treatise have been used or in some cases reprinted with the express
consent of the copyright holder.
To establish its contract claim against
the defendant, plaintiff must prove that:
1. The parties entered into a contract
containing certain terms.
2. The plaintiff did what the contract
required the plaintiff to do.
3. The defendant did not do what the contract
required the defendant to do. This
failure is called a breach of the contract.
4. The defendant’s breach, or failure to do
what the contract required, caused a loss to the plaintiff.
If you find
plaintiff proved these four elements, then your verdict must be for the
plaintiff. If you find that plaintiff
has not proved these elements, then your verdict must be for the
defendant. [When an affirmative defense is argued, add the following: “If the plaintiff has proved all of these
elements, then you will consider the defense of( )”].
NOTE TO JUDGE
This charge includes the
four basis elements plaintiff must prove in breach of contract cases. In most instances the actual dispute will
involve one or more of these basis elements.
The charges that follow are designed to supplement or be incorporated
into whichever principle or principles are at issue. For example, the first basic element concerns
the existence of a contract. This
element could be supplemented with many potential issues dealt with in the
following charges, such as those dealing with disputed meaning of terms or
implied terms. The second basis element
deals with the plaintiff’s contractual obligations. Therefore, as another example, if the
defendant claims that plaintiff materially breached or failed to satisfy a
condition precedent, or both, the specific charges that follow dealing with
those points are designed to supplement or modify the basic charge as
needed. In addition if the nature of the
contract would render substantial performance sufficient for plaintiff to
recover, then the basic charge should be modified by not only incorporating the
specific charge on substantial performance, but also by inserting the word
“substantially” in the basic charge to describe plaintiff’s performance
obligations.
Besides supplementing and modifying the basic charge by incorporating
the specific charges that follow, a number of affirmative defense charges 4.10N
(a) through (o) can be utilized in the same way by adding the appropriate
affirmative defense charge following the last sentence of the basic elements
charge.
In addition, all of the
following charges contemplate a typical contract case where plaintiff promisee
sues the defendant promisor. The charges
can be modified to reflect counterclaims and cross-claims by changing the
existing party references.
