pjc-oil-and-gas-2022-lib

pretation of a contract not for damages purposes but for ongoing business relations or other reasons, then the question —rather than instruction—in PJC 305.4 is the recom mended, more proper pattern form to use. The commentary in each of these questions has also been updated and streamlined, with the primary discussion on ambiguity now included under the instruction in PJC 305.12. The previous Comment PJC on court’s construction of provision of agreement (PJC 305.8) is also now subsumed in the com mentary under PJC 305.12. Finally, these updates place renewed emphasis on the circumstances 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 written contract, consideration (or its alleged inadequacy) is a defensive issue properly submitted with an instruction as indicated in PJC 312.2 under the general defense question in PJC 312.1. By contrast, in cases involving an alleged oral contract, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving consideration, as reflected in PJC 305.2, requiring an affirmative finding that includes consideration. In addition to these updates throughout, new material added in this section and to chapter 312 includes an expanded discussion on parol evidence (PJC 305.9); new instructions on release (PJC 312.5) and fraudulent inducement (PJC 312.15); an expanded discussion and new proposed instruction on trade customs (PJC 305.20); a new instruction on waiver of condition precedent (PJC 305.21); and a new comment on partial performance (PJC 312.17).

134