UT · jury_instructions
MUJI 2d CV2120
Accord and satisfaction.
[Name of defendant] claims that [he] did not have to perform [his] [describe old contract obligations] because [he] and [name of plaintiff] had a disagreement about the contract that they resolved by entering into a new contract that replaced the first contract. [Name of defendant] claims that the new contract required [describe the new obligation(s)] and that [he] has fully performed or is performing these obligations.
To succeed on this claim, [name of defendant] must prove that:(1) [name of plaintiff] and [name of defendant] had a dispute about the original contract that they resolved by entering into a new contract; and
(2) [name of defendant] fully performed or is performing [his] obligations under the new contract.
If you decide that [name of defendant] has proved both of these things, then [name of defendant] is released from performing [describe obligations] under the original contract.
Provenance
- Source
- legacy.utcourts.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-22
- Edition
- 2026-08-21
- Content hash
07c11088aaf283473f00b5e89d5bdf43944a5a850b45ee6b29239806ce1e3552
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.