NJ · jury_instructions
N.J. Model Civil Jury Charge 4.10I
Modification
4.10 BILATERAL CONTRACTS
I. MODIFICATION (Approved 5/98)
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 certa in, 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.
1Ball v. Metal-Wash Machinery Co., Inc., 132 N.J.L. 285 (E. & A. 1939); Mangone v.
Mangone, 202 N.J. Super. 505, 510 (Ch. Div. 1985); Troth v. Millville Bottle Works, 89 N.J.L.
219 (E. & A. 1916); Headlye v. Cavileer, 82 N.J.L. 735 (E. & A. 1912); Bollinger v. Ward, 34
N.J. Super. 583, 587 (App. Div. 1955).
2See definition of consideration in 4.10C.
History
(Approved 5/98)
Provenance
- Source
- njcourts.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-20
- Edition
- 2026-08-20
- Content hash
426ed9dd41c1f17d8377f3f0da664041808f5b3ada6015c49c09dc1a9d40f58e
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.