NC · jury_instructions
N.C.P.I.—Civil 501.60
CONTRACTS - ISSUE OF FORMATION-DEFENSE OF CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD - REBUTTAL BY PROOF OF OPENNESS, FAIRNESS AND HONESTY.
The (state number) issue reads:
"Did the plaintiff act openly, fairly and honestly when inducing the
defendant to enter into the contract?" 1
(You are to answer this issue only if you have answered the (state
number)2 issue "Yes" in favor of the defendant.)
On this issue the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. This means
that the plaintiff must prove, by the greater weight of the evidence, that,
prior to the defendant's entry into the contract, the plaintiff made a full,
open disclosure of material facts, that he dealt with the defendant fairly,
without oppression, imposition or fraud, and that he acted honestly.3
Finally, as to the (state number) issue on which the plaintiff has
the burden of proof, if you find by the greater weight of the evidence that
the plaintiff acted openly, fairly and honestly when inducing the
defendant to enter into the contract, then it would be your duty to
answer this issue "Yes" in favor of the plaintiff.
If, on the other hand, you fail to so find, then it would be your duty
to answer this issue "No" in favor of the defendant.
History
N.C.P.I.—Civil 501.60 (May 2003). Prepared by the North Carolina Conference of Superior Court Judges' Committee on Pattern Jury Instructions, assisted by the UNC School of Government; published by the School of Government.
Provenance
- Source
- sog.unc.edu
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-24
- Edition
- 2026-09-24
- Content hash
d4b0731073a6840cce6c18428b7c39f92a044b7af4c4817d70b1c2ffdda6b375
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.