|
4.2-1 Effect of Contract Language
Revised to January 1, 2008
[<If dispute is about existence
of terms:> The parties have a dispute as to whether the contract
provides for <insert terms in dispute>. The plaintiff claims
<insert plaintiff's contention>, and the defendant claims <insert
defendant's contention>. The plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of
the evidence that the contract contained the terms that the plaintiff seeks
to enforce.]
[<If there is a dispute over
meaning:> The parties have a dispute as to the meaning of the language
of the contract that states <insert terms in dispute>. Here, the
plaintiff claims that this term means <insert plaintiff's contention>
and the defendant claims <insert defendant's contention>. The
plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the disputed
terms meant <insert plaintiff's contention>.]
To determine whether the contract
provided <insert disputed issue>, you must decide whether it was the
parties' intent to provide <insert disputed issue>. The first place
to look to find the parties' intent is the wording that was used in the
contract. Words in a contract are to be given their ordinary meaning [,
unless they are special terms of trade or the parties have given them
special meaning]. If you cannot determine what was intended from the
language you may consider the circumstances surrounding the entering into
the contract or other legal doctrines that I will provide to you in these
instructions.
|
