Kenneth Vercammen is a Middlesex County Trial Attorney who has published 130 articles in national and New Jersey publications on Criminal Law, Probate, Estate and litigation topics.

He was awarded the NJ State State Bar Municipal Court Practitioner of the Year.

He lectures and handles criminal cases, Municipal Court, DWI, traffic and other litigation matters.

To schedule a confidential consultation, call us or New clients email us evenings and weekends via contact box www.njlaws.com.

Kenneth Vercammen & Associates, P.C,

2053 Woodbridge Avenue,

Edison, NJ 08817,

(732) 572-0500

Wednesday, December 27, 2017

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.