Kenneth Vercammen (732) 572-0500

2053 Woodbridge Ave. Edison, NJ 08817

Ken is a NJ trial attorney who has published 130 articles in national and New Jersey publications on litigation topics. He was awarded the NJ State Bar Municipal Court Practitioner of the Year. He lectures for the Bar and handles litigation matters. He is Past Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Committee, GP on Personal Injury and lectured at the ABA Annual Meeting attended by 10,000 attorneys and professionals.

New clients email us evenings and weekends go to www.njlaws.com/ContactKenV.htm

Monday, March 28, 2016

Civil Model Jury Charge 4.10 I. MODIFICATION BILATERAL IN NJ

Civil Model Jury Charge 4.10 I. MODIFICATION BILATERAL


Civil Model Jury Charge4.10I.MODIFICATIONBILATERAL CONTRACTS
The plaintiff claims that the original contract was later modified to [state modification].The defendant denies this.[1]The defendant contended that [state contention].To establish the modification, the plaintiff must prove that:
1.The parties agreed to the modification.
2.There was some outward indication of their agreement.
3.The terms were reasonably certain, meaning the parties could identify what they are required to do and determine at some future date whether or not the terms have been fulfilled.
4.The defendant received some new value[2]in exchange for agreeing to the modification.

[1]Ball v. Metal-Wash Machinery Co., Inc., 132N.J.L.285 (E. & A. 1939);Mangone v. Mangone, 202N.J. Super.505, 510 (Ch. Div. 1985);Troth v. Millville Bottle Works, 89N.J.L.219 (E. & A. 1916);Headlye v. Cavileer, 82N.J.L.735 (E. & A. 1912);Bollinger v. Ward, 34N.J. Super.583, 587 (App. Div. 1955).
[2]Seedefinition of consideration in 4.10C.

No comments: