OK · jury_instructions
OUJI-CIV No. 23.56
should be given instead of this Instruction No. 23.51.
If the plaintiff is a former employee seeking damages for breach of an
employment contract, the last sentence of the first paragraph above might read: "In this
OUJI 3d (Rev. 2009) Chapter 23
case, the amount of damages would be the di fference between the amount that [Plaintiff]
was entitled to under the employment contract and what [he/she] has earned since its
breach [or could have earned using reas onable diligence in finding employment of
comparable quality as the employment with [Defendant]]; [and the loss of earnings in the
future that [Plaintiff] is reasonably likely to suffer as a direct result of the breach, if
[he/she] used reasonable diligence in finding employment of comparable quality.]"
Provenance
- Source
- oscn.net
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-23
- Edition
- 2026-08-23
- Content hash
0c348668fa7431bae045ebe160d17eb449d462cfe04ea7d937e239e95236fbe1
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.