PJC Business

interpretation of a contract not for damages purposes but for ongoing business rela tions or other reasons, then the question —rather than instruction—in PJC 101.3 is the recommended, more proper pattern form to use. The commentary in each of these questions has also been updated and streamlined, with the primary discussion on ambi guity now included under the instruction in PJC 101.12. The previous Comment PJC on court’s construction of provision of agreement (PJC 101.7) is also now subsumed in the commentary under PJC 101.12. Finally, this updated chapter on contracts places renewed emphasis on the circum stances applicable where a party rests its claims on an alleged oral agreement. Apart from the instructions regarding what is required to prove an oral agreement, there are other subtle but important distinctions affecting how juries are charged, including that the burden of proof on most consideration matters is different. Typically, with a writ ten contract, consideration (or its alleged inadequacy) is a defensive issue properly submitted with an instruction as indicated in PJC 101.18 under the general defense question in PJC 101.7. By contrast, in cases involving an alleged oral contract, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving consideration, as reflected in PJC 101.1, requiring an affirmative finding that includes consideration. In addition to these updates throughout, new material includes an expanded discus sion on parol evidence (PJC 101.9); new instructions on release (PJC 101.21) and fraudulent inducement (PJC 101.31); an expanded discussion and new proposed instructions on trade customs (PJC 101.32); a new instruction on waiver of condition precedent (PJC 101.33); and new commentary on partial performance (PJC 101.35).

40