UT · jury_instructions
MUJI 2d CV2238
Accord and satisfaction.
[Name of owner] claims that [he] did not have to perform [describe old contract obligations] because [he] and [name of contractor] had a disagreement about the contract that they resolved by entering into a new contract that replaced the first contract. [Name of owner] 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 owner] must prove that:
(1) [name of contractor] and [name of owner] had a dispute about the original contract that they resolved by entering into a new contract; and
(2) [name of owner] fully performed or is performing [his] obligations under the new contract.
If you decide that [name of owner] has proved both of these things, then [name of owner] 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
705806a110b106b784c9cba51ed9ef46cb474466a1f22a7858cc702ee3f6ba5c
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.