Where the existence of an agreement is contested in a breach of contract action, the plaintiff must show, among other things, an offer was made by proving: The plaintiff communicated to the defendant that he was willing to enter into a contract with the defendant; … Continue readingCONTRACT FORMATION: OFFER
Parties to a breach of contract action may contest the meaning of words in a written agreement. If, after considering the facts and applicable legal standard, the meaning of contractual language is unclear, then the contract should be interpreted against the party who drafted the … Continue readingCONTRACT INTERPRETATION: CONSTRUCTION AGAINST DRAFTER
In a breach of contract action, where the agreement does not state a specific time in which the parties are to meet the requirements of the contract, the parties must generally meet those requirements within a reasonable time. What is a reasonable time depends on … Continue readingCONTRACT INTERPRETATION: REASONABLE TIME
In certain breach of contract actions, the finder of fact (judge or jury) may look to how the parties acted after the contract was created, but before any disagreement between the parties arose, to determine what the words in the agreement mean.
In interpreting contracts, the finder of fact (judge or jury) will consider the agreement as a whole, not just in isolated parts. Each part is helpful in interpreting others, so that the parts find harmony when viewed together.
In interpreting contracts, the finder of fact (judge or jury) will assume the parties to the agreement intended technical words used in the contract to have the meaning that is usually given to them by people who work in that technical field, unless it is … Continue readingCONTRACT INTERPRETATION: MEANING OF TECHNICAL WORDS
In interpreting contracts, the finder of fact (judge or jury) will assume the parties intended the words in their contract to have their usual and ordinary meaning, unless it is decided that the parties intended the words to have a special meaning.
Where there is a dispute as to the meaning of words in a contract, the finder of fact (judge or jury) will decide what the parties intended at the time the contract was created by considering the usual and ordinary meaning of the language used … Continue readingCONTRACT INTERPRETATION: DISPUTED WORDS
Using the legal process for a purpose it was not designed to achieved may give rise to civil liability. To prevail in a claim for abuse of process, the plaintiff must prove: The defendant intentionally used the legal procedure for an improper purpose that the … Continue readingABUSE OF PROCESS
In a defamation action, the defendant is not responsible for the plaintiff’s harm, if any, if he proves the plaintiff consented, by words or conduct, to the defendant’s communication of the statement(s) to others. In deciding whether the plaintiff consented to the communication, the finder … Continue readingDEFAMATION: AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF CONSENT