pjc-oil-and-gas-2022-lib

PJC 305.3

O IL AND G AS I NDUSTRY A GREEMENTS

PJC 305.3 Basic Question—Compliance (Non-JOA) PJC 305.3A Breach When Only One Party Claims a Material Breach QUESTION ______ Did Don Davis fail to comply with the agreement ? [Insert instructions, as appropriate.] Answer “Yes” or “No.” Answer: _______________ COMMENT When to use. If breach is the only issue in dispute, no predicate is required. Oth erwise, PJC 305.3A should be submitted predicated on an affirmative answer to PJC 305.2. This question should be used when only one party asserts a claim based on a material breach. For questions specifically addressing the joint operating agreement, see PJC 305.27 and 305.28. Interpretation. Construction of an unambiguous term is an issue for the court. Milner v. Milner , 361 S.W.3d 615, 619 (Tex. 2012). If appropriate, an instruction should be included giving the jury the correct interpretation of that term. If the court determines that a particular provision is ambiguous, an instruction on resolving that ambiguity should be included. See PJC 305.12 (instruction for breach questions involving ambiguity) and PJC 305.4 (question for declarations to resolve ambiguity). Broad-form submission. PJC 305.3A is a broad-form question designed to be accompanied by one or more appropriate instructions. Tex. R. Civ. P. 277 requires that “the court shall, whenever feasible, submit the cause upon broad-form questions.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 277; see Thota v. Young , 366 S.W.3d 678, 689 (Tex. 2012) (rule 277’s use of “whenever feasible” mandates broad-form submission in any or every instance in which it is capable of being accomplished). For further discussion, see PJC 314.2 regarding broad-form issues and the Casteel doctrine. When a broad-form submission is not feasible, the cause may be submitted on more limited fact-specific questions, such as— Did Don Davis fail [ insert alleged failure ]? Disjunctive question for competing claims of material breach. If both parties allege a breach of contract against one another, the court should ask the breach-of-

144