Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05098/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05098-29/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TK POWER, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

TEXTRON, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-04-5098 EMC

JURY INSTRUCTIONS

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 1 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-2-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 1

DUTY OF JURY

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: YOU NOW ARE THE JURY IN THIS CASE, AND I

WANT TO TAKE A FEW MINUTES TO TELL YOU SOMETHING ABOUT YOUR DUTIES AS

JURORS AND TO GIVE YOU SOME INSTRUCTIONS. AT THE END OF THE TRIAL, I WILL

GIVE YOU MORE DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS. THOSE INSTRUCTIONS WILL CONTROL

YOUR DELIBERATIONS.

YOU SHOULD NOT TAKE ANYTHING I MAY SAY OR DO DURING THE TRIAL AS

INDICATING WHAT I THINK OF THE EVIDENCE OR WHAT YOUR VERDICT SHOULD

BE.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 2 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-3-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 2

CLAIMS AND DEFENSES

TO HELP YOU FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE, I WILL GIVE YOU A BRIEF SUMMARY

OF THE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES:

THE PLAINTIFF TK POWER CLAIMS THAT IT IS ENTITLED TO MONETARY

PAYMENT FROM TEXTRON/E-Z-GO FOR AT LEAST TWO REASONS. 

TK POWER CLAIMS THAT IT AND TEXTRON/E-Z-GO ENTERED INTO A

CONTRACT FOR TK POWER TO DEVELOP AN ON-BOARD BATTERY CHARGER AND

THEN FOR TEXTRON/E-Z-GO TO PURCHASE 75,000 BATTERY CHARGERS FOR 3-5

YEARS AFTER DEVELOPMENT OF THE ON-BOARD BATTERY CHARGER BY TK

POWER.

TK POWER CLAIMS THAT TEXTRON/E-Z-GO BREACHED THIS CONTRACT BY

REPUDIATING THE CONTRACT DURING THE COURSE OF DEVELOPMENT. 

TK POWER ALSO CLAIMS THAT TEXTRON/E-Z-GO ‘S BREACH OF THIS

CONTRACT CAUSED HARM TO TK POWER FOR WHICH TEXTRON/E-Z-GO SHOULD

PAY.

TK POWER ALSO CLAIMS THAT TEXTRON/E-Z-GO COMMITTED A FRAUD

WHEN IT TOLD TK POWER THAT IT WAS PLANNING ON PURCHASING 75,000

CHARGERS PER YEAR FROM TK POWER. 

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 3 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-4-

TK POWER CLAIMS THAT IT IS ENTITLED TO THE EXPENSES IT INCURRED IN

RELIANCE ON TEXTRON/E-Z-GO’S FRAUDULENT STATEMENT AND OTHER

DAMAGES.

TEXTRON/E-Z-GO DENIES THESE ALLEGATIONS AND CLAIMS THAT ITS

CONTRACT WITH TK WAS CANCELED DUE TO TK’S OWN BREACH OF THE

AGREEMENT BY FAILURE TO TIMELY TENDER DELIVERY OF FIVE WORKING

PROTOTYPES AS REQUIRED BY THE CONTRACT. 

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 4 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-5-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 3

WHAT IS EVIDENCE

THE EVIDENCE YOU ARE TO CONSIDER IN DECIDING WHAT THE FACTS ARE

CONSISTS OF:

(1) THE SWORN TESTIMONY OF ANY WITNESS;

(2) THE EXHIBITS WHICH ARE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE; AND

(3) ANY FACTS TO WHICH ALL THE LAWYERS STIPULATE.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 5 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-6-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 4

WHAT IS NOT EVIDENCE

THE FOLLOWING THINGS ARE NOT EVIDENCE, AND YOU MUST NOT CONSIDER

THEM AS EVIDENCE IN DECIDING THE FACTS OF THIS CASE:

(1) STATEMENTS AND ARGUMENTS OF THE ATTORNEYS;

(2) QUESTIONS AND OBJECTIONS OF THE ATTORNEYS;

(3) TESTIMONY THAT I INSTRUCT YOU TO DISREGARD; AND

(4) ANYTHING YOU MAY SEE OR HEAR WHEN THE COURT IS NOT IN

SESSION EVEN IF WHAT YOU SEE OR HEAR IS DONE OR SAID BY ONE OF

THE PARTIES OR BY ONE OF THE WITNESSES. 

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 6 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-7-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 5

EVIDENCE FOR LIMITED PURPOSE

SOME EVIDENCE MAY BE ADMITTED FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE ONLY. WHEN I

INSTRUCT YOU THAT AN ITEM OF EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADMITTED FOR A LIMITED

PURPOSE, YOU MUST CONSIDER IT ONLY FOR THAT LIMITED PURPOSE AND FOR NO

OTHER.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 7 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-8-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 6

DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

EVIDENCE MAY BE DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL. DIRECT EVIDENCE IS

DIRECT PROOF OF A FACT, SUCH AS TESTIMONY BY A WITNESS ABOUT WHAT THAT

WITNESS PERSONALLY SAW OR HEARD OR DID. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS

PROOF OF ONE OR MORE FACTS FROM WHICH YOU COULD FIND ANOTHER FACT.

YOU SHOULD CONSIDER BOTH KINDS OF EVIDENCE. THE LAW MAKES NO

DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN TO EITHER DIRECT OR

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. IT IS FOR YOU TO DECIDE HOW MUCH WEIGHT TO

GIVE TO ANY EVIDENCE.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 8 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-9-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 7

DEPOSITION AS SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE

WHEN A PERSON IS UNAVAILABLE TO TESTIFY AT TRIAL, THE DEPOSITION OF

THAT PERSON MAY BE USED AT THE TRIAL. A DEPOSITION IS THE SWORN

TESTIMONY OF A WITNESS TAKEN BEFORE TRIAL. THE WITNESS IS PLACED UNDER

OATH TO TELL THE TRUTH AND LAWYERS FOR EACH PARTY MAY ASK QUESTIONS.

THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ARE RECORDED.

DEPOSITION TESTIMONY IS ENTITLED TO THE SAME CONSIDERATION AND IS

TO BE JUDGED, INSOFAR AS POSSIBLE, IN THE SAME WAY AS IF THE WITNESS HAD

BEEN PRESENT TO TESTIFY.

DO NOT PLACE ANY SIGNIFICANCE ON THE BEHAVIOR OR TONE OF VOICE OF

ANY PERSON READING THE QUESTIONS OR ANSWERS.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 9 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-10-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 8

ADMITTED MATTER IS CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED

ANY MATTER ADMITTED IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION IS

CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 10 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-11-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 9

USE OF RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES OR NARRATIVE RESPONSES TO

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS OF A PARTY

EVIDENCE IS NOW TO BE PRESENTED TO YOU IN THE FORM OF ANSWERS OF

ONE OF THE PARTIES TO WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES OR REQUESTS FOR

ADMISSIONS SUBMITTED BY THE OTHER SIDE. THESE ANSWERS TO

INTERROGATORIES AND NARRATIVE RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN WRITING AND UNDER OATH, BEFORE THE ACTUAL TRIAL, IN

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS WHICH WERE SUBMITTED IN WRITING UNDER

ESTABLISHED COURT PROCEDURES. THE ANSWERS AND RESPONSES ARE ENTITLED

TO THE SAME CONSIDERATION AND ARE TO BE JUDGED AS TO CREDIBILITY AND

WEIGHT, AND OTHERWISE CONSIDERED BY YOU INSOFAR AS POSSIBLE, AS IF THE

ANSWERS WERE MADE FROM THE WITNESS STAND.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 11 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-12-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 10

RULING ON OBJECTIONS

THERE ARE RULES OF EVIDENCE THAT CONTROL WHAT CAN BE RECEIVED

INTO EVIDENCE. WHEN A LAWYER ASKS A QUESTION OR OFFERS AN EXHIBIT INTO

EVIDENCE AND A LAWYER ON THE OTHER SIDE THINKS THAT IT IS NOT PERMITTED

BY THE RULES OF EVIDENCE, THAT LAWYER MAY OBJECT. IF I OVERRULE THE

OBJECTION, THE QUESTION MAY BE ANSWERED OR THE EXHIBIT RECEIVED. IF I

SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION, THE QUESTION CANNOT BE ANSWERED, AND THE

EXHIBIT CANNOT BE RECEIVED. WHENEVER I SUSTAIN AN OBJECTION TO A

QUESTION, YOU MUST IGNORE THE QUESTION AND MUST NOT GUESS WHAT THE

ANSWER MIGHT HAVE BEEN.

SOMETIMES I MAY ORDER THAT EVIDENCE BE STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD

AND THAT YOU DISREGARD OR IGNORE THE EVIDENCE. THAT MEANS THAT WHEN

YOU ARE DECIDING THE CASE, YOU MUST NOT CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE THAT I

TOLD YOU TO DISREGARD.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 12 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-13-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 11

CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES

IN DECIDING THE FACTS IN THIS CASE, YOU MAY HAVE TO DECIDE WHICH

TESTIMONY TO BELIEVE AND WHICH TESTIMONY NOT TO BELIEVE. YOU MAY

BELIEVE EVERYTHING A WITNESS SAYS, OR PART OF IT, OR NONE OF IT.

IN CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY OF ANY WITNESS, YOU MAY TAKE INTO

ACCOUNT:

(1) THE OPPORTUNITY AND ABILITY OF THE WITNESS TO SEE OR HEAR OR

KNOW THE THINGS TESTIFIED TO;

(2) THE WITNESS’S MEMORY;

(3) THE WITNESS’S MANNER WHILE TESTIFYING;

(4) THE WITNESS’S INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THE CASE AND ANY

BIAS OR PREJUDICE;

(5) WHETHER OTHER EVIDENCE CONTRADICTED THE WITNESS’S

TESTIMONY;

(6) THE REASONABLENESS OF THE WITNESS’S TESTIMONY IN LIGHT OF

ALL THE EVIDENCE; AND

(7) ANY OTHER FACTORS THAT BEAR ON BELIEVABILITY.

THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AS TO A FACT DOES NOT NECESSARILY

DEPEND ON THE NUMBER OF WITNESSES WHO TESTIFY.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 13 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-14-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 12

NO TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE TO JURY

AT THE END OF THE TRIAL YOU WILL HAVE TO MAKE YOUR DECISION BASED

ON WHAT YOU RECALL OF THE EVIDENCE. YOU WILL NOT HAVE A TRANSCRIPT OF

THE TRIAL. I URGE YOU TO PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE TESTIMONY AS IT IS

GIVEN.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 14 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-15-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 13

TAKING NOTES

IF YOU WISH, YOU MAY TAKE NOTES TO HELP YOU REMEMBER WHAT

WITNESSES SAID. IF YOU DO TAKE NOTES, PLEASE KEEP THEM TO YOURSELF UNTIL

YOU AND YOUR FELLOW JURORS GO TO THE JURY ROOM TO DECIDE THE CASE. DO

NOT LET NOTE-TAKING DISTRACT YOU SO THAT YOU DO NOT HEAR OTHER

ANSWERS BY WITNESSES. WHEN YOU LEAVE, YOUR NOTES SHOULD BE LEFT IN

THE ENVELOPE IN THE JURY ROOM.

WHETHER OR NOT YOU TAKE NOTES, YOU SHOULD RELY ON YOUR OWN

MEMORY OF WHAT WAS SAID. NOTES ARE ONLY TO ASSIST YOUR MEMORY. YOU

SHOULD NOT BE OVERLY INFLUENCED BY THE NOTES.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 15 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-16-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 14

OUTLINE OF TRIAL

THE NEXT PHASE OF THE TRIAL WILL NOW BEGIN. FIRST, EACH SIDE MAY

MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT. AN OPENING STATEMENT IS NOT EVIDENCE. IT IS

SIMPLY AN OUTLINE TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT PARTY EXPECTS THE

EVIDENCE WILL SHOW. A PARTY IS NOT REQUIRED TO MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT.

TK POWER WILL THEN PRESENT EVIDENCE, AND COUNSEL FOR THE

TEXTRON/E-Z-GO MAY CROSS-EXAMINE. THEN TEXTRON/E-Z-GO MAY PRESENT

EVIDENCE, AND COUNSEL FOR TK POWER MAY CROSS-EXAMINE.

AFTER THE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED, I WILL INSTRUCT YOU ON THE

LAW THAT APPLIES TO THE CASE AND THE ATTORNEYS WILL MAKE CLOSING

ARGUMENTS.

AFTER THAT, YOU WILL GO TO THE JURY ROOM TO DELIBERATE ON YOUR

VERDICT.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 16 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-17-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 15

QUESTIONS TO WITNESSES BY JURORS

WHILE IT IS NOT CUSTOMARY FOR A JUROR TO ASK A QUESTION OF A

WITNESS, IF YOU WISH TO DO SO, PUT THE QUESTION IN WRITING AND HAND IT TO

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY. 

THE COURT AND COUNSEL WILL REVIEW YOUR QUESTION. DO NOT BE

CONCERNED IF THE QUESTION IS NOT ASKED.

DO NOT DISCUSS YOUR QUESTION WITH ANYONE, INCLUDING THE

COURTROOM DEPUTY. REMEMBER THAT YOU ARE NOT TO DISCUSS THE CASE WITH

OTHER JURORS UNTIL IT IS SUBMITTED FOR YOUR DECISION.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 17 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-18-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 16

BENCH CONFERENCES AND RECESSES

FROM TIME TO TIME DURING THE TRIAL, IT MAY BECOME NECESSARY FOR

ME TO TALK WITH THE ATTORNEYS OUT OF THE HEARING OF THE JURY, EITHER BY

HAVING A CONFERENCE AT THE BENCH WHEN THE JURY IS PRESENT IN THE

COURTROOM, OR BY CALLING A RECESS. PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT WHILE YOU

ARE WAITING, WE ARE WORKING. THE PURPOSE OF THESE CONFERENCES IS NOT TO

KEEP RELEVANT INFORMATION FROM YOU, BUT TO DECIDE HOW CERTAIN

EVIDENCE IS TO BE TREATED UNDER THE RULES OF EVIDENCE AND TO AVOID

CONFUSION AND ERROR.

WE WILL, OF COURSE, DO WHAT WE CAN TO KEEP THE NUMBER AND LENGTH

OF THESE CONFERENCES TO A MINIMUM. I MAY NOT ALWAYS GRANT AN

ATTORNEY’S REQUEST FOR A CONFERENCE. DO NOT CONSIDER MY GRANTING OR

DENYING A REQUEST FOR A CONFERENCE AS ANY INDICATION OF MY OPINION OF

THE CASE OR OF WHAT YOUR VERDICT SHOULD BE.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 18 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-19-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 17

CONDUCT OF THE JURY

I WILL NOW SAY A FEW WORDS ABOUT YOUR CONDUCT AS JURORS.

FIRST, YOU ARE NOT TO DISCUSS THIS CASE WITH ANYONE, INCLUDING

YOUR FELLOW JURORS, MEMBERS OF YOUR FAMILY, PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE

TRIAL, OR ANYONE ELSE, NOR ARE YOU ALLOWED TO PERMIT OTHERS TO DISCUSS

THE CASE WITH YOU. IF ANYONE APPROACHES YOU AND TRIES TO TALK TO YOU

ABOUT THE CASE, PLEASE LET ME KNOW ABOUT IT IMMEDIATELY;

SECOND, DO NOT READ ANY NEWS STORIES OR ARTICLES OR LISTEN TO ANY

RADIO OR TELEVISION REPORTS ABOUT THE CASE OR ABOUT ANYONE WHO HAS

ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT;

THIRD, DO NOT DO ANY RESEARCH, SUCH AS CONSULTING DICTIONARIES,

SEARCHING THE INTERNET OR USING OTHER REFERENCE MATERIALS, AND DO NOT

MAKE ANY INVESTIGATION ABOUT THE CASE ON YOUR OWN;

FOURTH, IF YOU NEED TO COMMUNICATE WITH ME SIMPLY GIVE A SIGNED

NOTE TO THE COURTROOM DEPUTY CLERK TO GIVE TO ME; AND

FIFTH, DO NOT MAKE UP YOUR MIND ABOUT WHAT THE VERDICT SHOULD BE

UNTIL AFTER YOU HAVE GONE TO THE JURY ROOM TO DECIDE THE CASE AND YOU

AND YOUR FELLOW JURORS HAVE DISCUSSED THE EVIDENCE. KEEP AN OPEN MIND

UNTIL THEN.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 19 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-20-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 18

CAUTIONARY INSTRUCTION—FIRST RECESS

WE ARE ABOUT TO TAKE OUR FIRST BREAK DURING THE TRIAL, AND I WANT

TO REMIND YOU OF THE INSTRUCTION I GAVE YOU EARLIER. UNTIL THE TRIAL IS

OVER, YOU ARE NOT TO DISCUSS THIS CASE WITH ANYONE, INCLUDING YOUR

FELLOW JURORS, MEMBERS OF YOUR FAMILY, PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE TRIAL, OR

ANYONE ELSE, NOR ARE YOU ALLOWED TO PERMIT OTHERS TO DISCUSS THE CASE

WITH YOU. IF ANYONE APPROACHES YOU AND TRIES TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE

CASE, PLEASE LET ME KNOW ABOUT IT IMMEDIATELY. DO NOT READ OR LISTEN TO

ANY NEWS REPORTS OF THE TRIAL. FINALLY, YOU ARE REMINDED TO KEEP AN

OPEN MIND UNTIL ALL THE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND YOU HAVE HEARD

THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL, THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE COURT, AND THE VIEWS

OF YOUR FELLOW JURORS.

IF YOU NEED TO SPEAK WITH ME ABOUT ANYTHING, SIMPLY GIVE A SIGNED

NOTE TO THE COURTROOM DEPUTY TO GIVE TO ME.

I WILL NOT REPEAT THESE ADMONITIONS EACH TIME WE RECESS OR

ADJOURN, BUT YOU WILL BE REMINDED OF THEM ON SUCH OCCASIONS.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 20 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-21-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 19

DUTIES OF JURY TO FIND FACTS AND FOLLOW LAW

MEMBERS OF THE JURY, NOW THAT YOU HAVE HEARD ALL THE EVIDENCE

AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ATTORNEYS, IT IS MY DUTY TO INSTRUCT YOU ON

THE LAW WHICH APPLIES TO THIS CASE. A COPY OF THESE INSTRUCTIONS WILL BE

AVAILABLE IN THE JURY ROOM FOR YOU TO CONSULT IF YOU FIND IT NECESSARY.

IT IS YOUR DUTY TO FIND THE FACTS FROM ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE.

TO THOSE FACTS YOU WILL APPLY THE LAW AS I GIVE IT TO YOU. YOU MUST

FOLLOW THE LAW AS I GIVE IT TO YOU WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH IT OR NOT.

YOU MUST NOT BE INFLUENCED BY ANY PERSONAL LIKES OR DISLIKES, OPINIONS,

PREJUDICES, OR SYMPATHY. THAT MEANS THAT YOU MUST DECIDE THE CASE

SOLELY ON THE EVIDENCE BEFORE YOU. YOU WILL RECALL THAT YOU TOOK AN

OATH PROMISING TO DO SO AT THE BEGINNING OF THE CASE.

IN FOLLOWING MY INSTRUCTIONS, YOU MUST FOLLOW ALL OF THEM AND

NOT SINGLE OUT SOME AND IGNORE OTHERS; THEY ARE ALL EQUALLY

IMPORTANT. YOU MUST NOT READ INTO THESE INSTRUCTIONS OR INTO ANYTHING

THE COURT MAY HAVE SAID OR DONE ANY SUGGESTION AS TO WHAT VERDICT

YOU SHOULD RETURN—THAT IS A MATTER ENTIRELY UP TO YOU.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 21 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-22-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 20

WHAT IS EVIDENCE

THE EVIDENCE FROM WHICH YOU ARE TO DECIDE WHAT THE FACTS ARE

CONSISTS OF:

(1) THE SWORN TESTIMONY OF ANY WITNESS;

(2) THE EXHIBITS WHICH HAVE BEEN RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE; AND

(3) ANY FACTS TO WHICH THE LAWYERS HAVE AGREED OR STIPULATED.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 22 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-23-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 21

WHAT IS NOT EVIDENCE

IN REACHING YOUR VERDICT, YOU MAY CONSIDER ONLY THE TESTIMONY

AND EXHIBITS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE. CERTAIN THINGS ARE NOT EVIDENCE,

AND YOU MAY NOT CONSIDER THEM IN DECIDING WHAT THE FACTS ARE. I WILL

LIST THEM FOR YOU:

(1) ARGUMENTS AND STATEMENTS BY LAWYERS ARE NOT EVIDENCE. THE

LAWYERS ARE NOT WITNESSES. WHAT THEY HAVE SAID IN THEIR

OPENING STATEMENTS, WILL SAY IN THEIR CLOSING ARGUMENTS,

AND AT OTHER TIMES IS INTENDED TO HELP YOU INTERPRET THE

EVIDENCE, BUT IT IS NOT EVIDENCE. IF THE FACTS AS YOU REMEMBER

THEM DIFFER FROM THE WAY THE LAWYERS HAVE STATED THEM,

YOUR MEMORY OF THEM CONTROLS.

(2) QUESTIONS AND OBJECTIONS BY LAWYERS ARE NOT EVIDENCE.

ATTORNEYS HAVE A DUTY TO THEIR CLIENTS TO OBJECT WHEN THEY

BELIEVE A QUESTION IS IMPROPER UNDER THE RULES OF EVIDENCE.

YOU SHOULD NOT BE INFLUENCED BY THE OBJECTION OR BY THE

COURT’S RULING ON IT.

(3) TESTIMONY THAT HAS BEEN EXCLUDED OR STRICKEN, OR THAT YOU

HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO DISREGARD, IS NOT EVIDENCE AND MUST

NOT BE CONSIDERED. IN ADDITION SOME TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS

HAVE BEEN RECEIVED ONLY FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE; WHERE I HAVE

GIVEN A LIMITING INSTRUCTION, YOU MUST FOLLOW IT.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 23 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-24-

(4) ANYTHING YOU MAY HAVE SEEN OR HEARD WHEN THE COURT WAS

NOT IN SESSION IS NOT EVIDENCE. YOU ARE TO DECIDE THE CASE

SOLELY ON THE EVIDENCE RECEIVED AT THE TRIAL.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 24 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-25-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 22

DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

EVIDENCE MAY BE DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL. DIRECT EVIDENCE IS

DIRECT PROOF OF A FACT, SUCH AS TESTIMONY OF AN EYEWITNESS.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS INDIRECT EVIDENCE, THAT IS, PROOF OF A CHAIN

OF FACTS FROM WHICH YOU COULD FIND THAT ANOTHER FACT EXISTS. YOU ARE

TO CONSIDER BOTH KINDS OF EVIDENCE. THE LAW PERMITS YOU TO GIVE EQUAL

WEIGHT TO BOTH, BUT IT IS FOR YOU TO DECIDE HOW MUCH WEIGHT TO GIVE TO

ANY EVIDENCE. BY WAY OF EXAMPLE, IF YOU WAKE UP IN THE MORNING AND SEE

THAT THE SIDEWALK IS WET, YOU MAY FIND FROM THAT FACT THAT IT RAINED

DURING THE NIGHT. HOWEVER, OTHER EVIDENCE, SUCH AS A TURNED ON GARDEN

HOSE, MAY EXPLAIN THE WATER ON THE SIDEWALK. THEREFORE, BEFORE YOU

DECIDE THAT A FACT HAS BEEN PROVED BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, YOU

MUST CONSIDER ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON, EXPERIENCE, AND

COMMON SENSE.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 25 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-26-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 23

CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES

IN DECIDING THE FACTS IN THIS CASE, YOU MAY HAVE TO DECIDE WHICH

TESTIMONY TO BELIEVE AND WHICH TESTIMONY NOT TO BELIEVE. YOU MAY

BELIEVE EVERYTHING A WITNESS SAYS, OR PART OF IT, OR NONE OF IT.

IN CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY OF ANY WITNESS, YOU MAY TAKE INTO

ACCOUNT:

(1) THE OPPORTUNITY AND ABILITY OF THE WITNESS TO SEE OR HEAR OR

KNOW THE THINGS TESTIFIED TO;

(2) THE WITNESS’ MEMORY;

(3) THE WITNESS’ MANNER WHILE TESTIFYING;

(4) THE WITNESS’ INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THE CASE AND ANY BIAS

OR PREJUDICE;

(5) WHETHER OTHER EVIDENCE CONTRADICTED THE WITNESS’

TESTIMONY;

(6) THE REASONABLENESS OF THE WITNESS’ TESTIMONY IN LIGHT OF ALL

THE EVIDENCE; AND

(7) ANY OTHER FACTORS THAT BEAR ON BELIEVABILITY.

THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AS TO A FACT DOES NOT NECESSARILY

DEPEND ON THE NUMBER OF WITNESSES WHO TESTIFY.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 26 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-27-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 24

OPINION EVIDENCE, EXPERT WITNESSES

YOU HAVE HEARD TESTIMONY FROM PERSONS WHO, BECAUSE OF

EDUCATION OR EXPERIENCE, ARE PERMITTED TO STATE OPINIONS AND THE

REASONS FOR THOSE OPINIONS.

OPINION TESTIMONY SHOULD BE JUDGED JUST LIKE ANY OTHER TESTIMONY.

YOU MAY ACCEPT IT OR REJECT IT, AND GIVE IT AS MUCH WEIGHT AS YOU THINK

IT DESERVES, CONSIDERING THE WITNESS’ EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE, THE

REASONS GIVEN FOR THE OPINION, AND ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE IN THE CASE.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 27 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-28-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 25

CHARTS AND SUMMARIES NOT RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE

CERTAIN CHARTS AND SUMMARIES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN RECEIVED IN

EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO YOU IN ORDER TO HELP EXPLAIN THE CONTENTS

OF BOOKS, RECORDS, DOCUMENTS, OR OTHER EVIDENCE IN THE CASE. THEY ARE

NOT THEMSELVES EVIDENCE OR PROOF OF ANY FACTS. IF THEY DO NOT

CORRECTLY REFLECT THE FACTS OR FIGURES SHOWN BY THE EVIDENCE IN THE

CASE, YOU SHOULD DISREGARD THESE CHARTS AND SUMMARIES AND DETERMINE

THE FACTS FROM THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 28 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-29-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 26

CHARTS AND SUMMARIES IN EVIDENCE

CERTAIN CHARTS AND SUMMARIES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE

TO ILLUSTRATE INFORMATION BROUGHT OUT IN THE TRIAL. CHARTS AND

SUMMARIES ARE ONLY AS GOOD AS THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS

THEM. YOU SHOULD, THEREFORE, GIVE THEM ONLY SUCH WEIGHT AS YOU THINK

THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE DESERVES.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 29 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-30-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 27

BURDEN OF PROOF - PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE

WHEN A PARTY HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON ANY CLAIM OR AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, IT MEANS YOU MUST BE

PERSUADED BY THE EVIDENCE THAT THE CLAIM OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IS

MORE PROBABLY TRUE THAN NOT TRUE.

YOU SHOULD BASE YOUR DECISION ON ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, REGARDLESS

OF WHICH PARTY PRESENTED IT.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 30 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-31-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 28

BURDEN OF PROOF—CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE

WHEN A PARTY HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING ANY CLAIM OR DEFENSE BY

CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, IT MEANS YOU MUST BE PERSUADED BY THE

EVIDENCE THAT THE CLAIM OR DEFENSE IS HIGHLY PROBABLE. SUCH EVIDENCE

REQUIRES A HIGHER STANDARD OF PROOF THAN PROOF BY A PREPONDERANCE OF

THE EVIDENCE.

YOU SHOULD BASE YOUR DECISION ON ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, REGARDLESS

OF WHICH PARTY PRESENTED IT.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 31 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-32-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 29

STIPULATIONS OF FACT

THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED TO CERTAIN FACTS THAT HAVE BEEN STATED

TO YOU. YOU SHOULD THEREFORE TREAT THESE FACTS AS HAVING BEEN PROVED.

1. E-Z-GO IS A DIVISION OF TEXTRON. TEXTRON IS THE NAMED

DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE. PLAINTIFF DEALT EXCLUSIVELY WITH

E-Z-GO IN THE CONTEXT OF THE AGREEMENT AT ISSUE. 

2. TK IS A NEVADA CORPORATION WITH ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF

BUSINESS IN FREMONT, CALIFORNIA IN ALAMEDA COUNTY. 

3. SINCE 2002, GENE TENCZAR HAS BEEN THE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF

EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF TK.

4. SINCE 2002, GARY FLEER HAS BEEN THE VICE PRESIDENT OF

OPERATIONS OF TK. 

5. JACEK KARCZEWSKI IS AN OUTSIDE CONTRACTOR HIRED TO WORK ON

DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHARGER. MR. KARCZEWSKI WORKED

PRIMARILY ON DESIGN OF ELECTRO-MECHANICAL ASPECTS OF THE

BATTERY CHARGER. 

6. VLADO STOJANOVIC IS ANOTHER OUTSIDE CONTRACTOR HIRED BY

ROBERT TAYLOR TO WORK ON DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHARGER. 

TAYLOR USED STOJANOVIC TO DEVELOP SOFTWARE FOR THE

BATTERY CHARGER. 

7. TEXTRON’S E-Z-GO DIVISION MANUFACTURES GOLF CARS AND

UTILITY VEHICLES. TEXTRON’S E-Z-GO DIVISION IS LOCATED IN

AUGUSTA, GEORGIA.

8. IN OR ABOUT MID-2001, DEFENDANT BEGAN EXPLORING THE

DEVELOPMENT AND OUTSOURCED MANUFACTURE OF A HIGH

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 32 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-33-

FREQUENCY ON-BOARD SOLID-STATE CHARGER FOR USE IN GOLF AND

TURF VEHICLES.

9. IN OR ABOUT MID-2001, DEFENDANT’S BUYER, JASON HYLAND,

CONTACTED ROBERT TAYLOR, WHO WAS AT THE TIME REPRESENTING

TK’S PREDECESSOR, TURN KEY SOLUTIONS, AND PROVIDED A LIST OF

ITEMS THAT DEFENDANT WANTED TO SEE IN WHAT IT CALLED “THE

NEW GENERATION CHARGER.”

10. IN OR ABOUT MID-2001, DEFENDANT WROTE TO ROBERT TAYLOR AND

INVITED HIM TO SUBMIT A QUOTE FOR A PRODUCTION OF

APPROXIMATELY 78,000 CHARGERS. 

11. IN AUGUST 2001, GENE TENCZAR, ROBERT TAYLOR AND ANOTHER TK

REPRESENTATIVE VISITED DEFENDANT’S FACILITY IN AUGUSTA,

GEORGIA TO DISCUSS TK’S CAPABILITIES, TECHNOLOGIES, AND THE

POSSIBILITY OF A PARTNERSHIP UNDER WHICH TK WOULD DESIGN,

DEVELOP, AND PRODUCE BATTERY CHARGERS FOR DEFENDANT. 

12. AS A PREREQUISITE TO ITS SELECTION OF A COMPANY TO DEVELOP A

PROTOTYPE HIGH-FREQUENCY ON-BOARD BATTERY CHARGER FOR IT,

DEFENDANT REQUIRED ANY SUCH COMPANY TO SUBMIT TO IT A

QUOTE WITH PRICING BASED ON EXPECTED MANUFACTURE OF

APPROXIMATELY 75,000 SUCH UNITS EACH YEAR. 

13. AS OF ITS RETENTION BY TK TO DEVELOP PROTOTYPE ON-BOARD

BATTERY CHARGERS FOR DEFENDANT, TK HAD MADE KNOWN ITS

INTENTION TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH DEFENDANT IN THE

FUTURE FOR ITS SALE OF APPROXIMATELY 75,000 CHARGERS TO

DEFENDANT ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. 

14. ON OR ABOUT MARCH 28, 2002, DEFENDANT IDENTIFIED TURNKEY

SOLUTIONS, INC., TK’S AFFILIATE, AS ONE OF SEVERAL POTENTIAL

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 33 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-34-

SUPPLIERS TO QUOTE ON THE COST FOR SELLING A CHARGER, BASED

ON AN EAU OF APPROXIMATELY 75,000 CHARGERS. 

15. ON APRIL 11, 2002, IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST, TK

PROVIDED TO DEFENDANT A BUDGETARY QUOTATION, BY WHICH IT

OFFERED TO SELL DEFENDANT CHARGERS AT $119.70 APIECE, BASED

ON AN EAU OF 75,000 UNITS. 

16. ON APRIL 11, 2002, TK ADVISED DEFENDANT NON-RECURRING

ENGINEERING FEES WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY $25,000 FOR

DEVELOPMENT OF 5 PROTOTYPES CHARGERS AND STATED A TARGET

DELIVERY DATE FOR CHARGERS WAS 6 MONTHS AFTER RECEIVING A

PURCHASE ORDER FROM DEFENDANT. 

17. ON JULY 22, 2002, STACEY GORDON OF DEFENDANT TEXTRON

RESPONDED TO TK’S ROBERT TAYLOR BY OUTLINING A “SCHEDULE

FOR CHARGER DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION.” 

18. ON JULY 23, 2003, ROBERT TAYLOR SENT STACEY GORDON AN EMAIL IN

WHICH HE THANKED DEFENDANT FOR SELECTING TK AS ITS

“DEVELOPMENT PARTNER.” 

19. ON JULY 26, 2002, STACEY GORDON OF DEFENDANT RESPONDED BY

LETTER WHICH STATED THAT DEFENDANT HAD “SELECTED TK POWER,

INC. TO DEVELOP THE NEXT GENERATION E-Z-GO CHARGER.” 

20. ON JULY 26, 2002, STACEY GORDON OF DEFENDANT ADVISED ROBERT

TAYLOR OF TK THAT DEFENDANT HAD SET A JANUARY 2004

PRODUCTION DATE AND ADVISED ROBERT TAYLOR THAT DEFENDANT

STILL INTENDED TO MEET THIS DEADLINE AND THAT HE WANTED TO

“DISCUSS THE TIMELINE . . . IN MORE DETAIL” LATER. 

21. IN DECIDING TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH TK, DEFENDANT

RELIED IN PART ON TK’S QUOTE OF “$119.70 BASED ON AN EAU OF

75,000 UNITS.” 

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 34 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-35-

22. DEFENDANT REQUESTED THAT TK NOT MARKET THE CHARGER TK

WAS DEVELOPING TO ANY OF ITS COMPETITORS OR SELL THE

ON-BOARD CHARGER TO ANYONE ELSE WHILE TK WAS ATTEMPTING

TO MANUFACTURE IT FOR DEFENDANT. 

23. TK REQUESTED A PURCHASE ORDER FROM DEFENDANT, AND

DEFENDANT PROVIDED ONE ON OCTOBER 15, 2002. 

24. ON OCTOBER 15, 2002, DEFENDANT SUBMITTED A PURCHASE ORDER TO

TK FOR FIVE CHARGERS THAT MET ITS SPECIFICATIONS. DEFENDANT

AGREED TO PAY $67,500.00. 

25. THE OCTOBER 15, 2002 PURCHASE ORDER THAT DEFENDANT

SUBMITTED TO TK WAS FOR DELIVERY OF SOFTWARE TO BE USED IN

THE ON-BOARD CHARGERS, FIVE PREPRODUCTION CHARGERS, AND

FIVE HEAT SINKS AND TOOLING. 

26. THE OCTOBER 15, 2002 PURCHASE ORDER THAT DEFENDANT

SUBMITTED TO TK PROVIDED THAT TK WOULD DEVELOP THE

SOFTWARE TO BE USED IN FIVE PREPRODUCTION, OR PROTOTYPE

CHARGERS, ALONG WITH “HEAT SINKS” IN WHICH THE CHARGER

HARDWARE WOULD SIT, AND “TOOLING” NECESSARY FOR THE

MANUFACTURE OF THE PROTOTYPES. 

27. DEFENDANT TENDERED PAYMENT TO TK AGAINST THE OCTOBER 15,

2002 PURCHASE ORDER FOR ON-BOARD HIGH FREQUENCY CHARGER

PROTOTYPES ON DECEMBER 3, 2002. PURSUANT TO AGREEMENT OF

THE PARTIES, DEFENDANT PAID ONE HALF OF THE PURCHASE ORDER

AMOUNT. TK ACCEPTED THE PAYMENT. 

28. ON JULY 22, 2002, STACEY GORDON SENT A LETTER TO ROBERT

TAYLOR THAT DISCUSSED DEFENDANT’S DESIRE FOR A “LOW COST

SOLUTION” “TO MEASURE AMP-HOURS REMOVED FROM AND

RETURNED TO THE BATTERIES.” 

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 35 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-36-

29. DEFENDANT MADE A DECISION THAT AN INTERNAL SHUNT WAS NOT

DESIRABLE IN LIGHT OF ITS COST, AND INSTEAD UTILIZED AN

EXTERNAL SHUNT THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED BY TK. 

30. DEFENDANT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR WRITING THE ALGORITHM FOR

THE ON-BOARD CHARGER. 

31. TK AND DEFENDANT AGREED THAT TK WOULD WRITE THE SOFTWARE

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ALGORITHM, AND THAT DEFENDANT

WOULD ALSO OWN THE SOFTWARE. 

32. BOURKE SUGGESTED CHANGES IN THE HARDWARE TK INCORPORATED

INTO THE ON-BOARD CHARGER TO IMPROVE SAFETY AND

RESOLUTION. 

33. IN AUGUST 2003, DEFENDANT REQUESTED TK TO ALTER THE

HARDWARE FOR USE IN THE ON-BOARD CHARGER. 

34. DEFENDANT NEVER DELIVERED TO TK ANY DOCUMENT ENTITLED

“FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATION,” WHICH DOCUMENT INCLUDED A

REQUIREMENT THAT THE CHARGER THAT TK DEVELOP FOR

DEFENDANT DETECT A CHANGE IN VOLTAGE THAT IS LOWER THAN 72

MV. 

35. DURING THE CHARGER DEVELOPMENT, DEFENDANT MADE CHANGES

TO THE WRITTEN VERSION OF ITS ORIGINAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR AN

ON-BOARD CHARGER AS CONVEYED TO TK. 

36. EVERY DOCUMENT INCLUDING THE WORDS “FUNCTIONAL

SPECIFICATIONS” IN ITS TITLE AND DELIVERED BY DEFENDANT TO TK

AFTER MAY 2002 INCLUDED THE WORD “DRAFT” IN THE DOCUMENT. 

37. THE FINAL, MASS PRODUCED VERSION OF THE CHARGER WOULD HAVE

REQUIRED AN EXTERNAL AC POWER LINE, WHICH IS NECESSARY TO

POWER AN ON-BOARD CHARGER. 

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 36 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-37-

38. DEFENDANT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROCURING AN AC CABLE FOR

USE WITH THE MASS PRODUCED VERSION OF THE ON-BOARD

CHARGER. 

39. DEFENDANT NEVER ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH TK FOR TK

TO DESIGN ANY EXTERNAL AC CONNECTOR AND CABLE FOR POWER

TO AN ON-BOARD HIGH FREQUENCY BATTERY CHARGER THAT TK WAS

DEVELOPING FOR DEFENDANT. 

40. AS OF 2004, AN ON-BOARD HIGH FREQUENCY BATTERY CHARGER

(SUCH AS THE ONE TK WAS DEVELOPING) REQUIRED AN EXTERNAL

FILTER IN ORDER TO OPERATE IN COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL

COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO

EMITTED NOISE. 

41. AS OF AUGUST 31, 2003, DEFENDANT HAD NOT COMPLETED

DEVELOPMENT OF AN EXTERNAL AC POWER CORD FOR USE WITH AN

ON-BOARD HIGH FREQUENCY CHARGER THAT TK POWER, INC. WAS

DEVELOPING FOR DEFENDANT. 

42. DEFENDANT HAD DECIDED THAT IT WOULD PURCHASE THE AC CABLE

FROM A CHINESE COMPANY NAMED PANTENE. 

43. DEFENDANT NEVER DELIVERED A TOOLING PURCHASE ORDER TO

PANTENE OR ANY OTHER PERSON FOR THE AC CABLE DESIGN IN AN

ON-BOARD HIGH FREQUENCY CHARGER. 

44. DEFENDANT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PUT AN ON-BOARD

CHARGER DEVELOPED BY TK INTO GOLF CARS FOR USE BY

CUSTOMERS UNLESS MOUNTING ACCOMMODATIONS WERE INSTALLED

IN THE GOLF CAR. 

45. DEFENDANT HAS NEVER MANUFACTURED A GOLF CAR WITH

MOUNTING ACCOMMODATIONS DESIGNED TO ACCEPT ANY ON-BOARD

CHARGER THAT TK MADE EFFORTS TO DEVELOP FOR DEFENDANT. 

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 37 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-38-

46. DEFENDANT WOULD HAVE PROVIDED NECESSARY MOUNTING

ACCOMMODATIONS TO USE THE ON-BOARD CHARGER, BUT ANY SUCH

ACCOMMODATIONS WOULD NOT HAVE REQUIRED A REDESIGN OF THE

GOLF CAR TO ACCEPT THE CHARGER. 

47. DEFENDANT DID NOT ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH TK OR ANY

OTHER PERSON FOR IT TO PROVIDE MOUNTING ACCOMMODATIONS

FOR ANY ON-BOARD BATTERY CHARGER. 

48. DEFENDANT DID NOT ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH TK FOR IT TO

PROVIDE A RE-TOOLED SIDE PANEL AND DASH PANEL TO ACCEPT A

LED STATUS MONITORING LIGHT FOR ANY ON-BOARD HIGH

FREQUENCY BATTERY CHARGER. 

49. DEFENDANT COULD NOT MASS-PRODUCE GOLF CARS INCORPORATING

THE ON-BOARD HIGH FREQUENCY CHARGER THAT TK POWER WAS

DEVELOPING FOR IT WITHOUT A NEWLY DESIGNED AC CABLE

RECEPTACLE. 

50. GREG SCHLACHTER SENT TO GENE TENCZAR AND ROBERT TAYLOR AN

EMAIL ON OR ABOUT MARCH 18, 2003, IN WHICH EMAIL, SCHLACHTER

STATED THAT HE WANTED TO “REVIEW [DEFENDANT’S] FINAL COST”

OF THE ON-BOARD CHARGER FOR PRODUCTION, AND HE ASKED THAT

THE COST COME IN THE $110.00 - $112.00 RANGE.” 

51. GREG SCHLACHTER SENT TO GENE TENCZAR AND ROBERT TAYLOR AN

EMAIL ON OR ABOUT MARCH 18, 2003, IN WHICH HE ASKED FOR

YEAR-OVER-YEAR COST REDUCTIONS IN THE RANGE OF 5% PER YEAR. 

52. IN MID TO LATE 2003, DEFENDANT REVIEWED ALL ASPECTS OF THE

ON-BOARD CHARGER PROJECT. 

53. IN MID TO LATE 2003, DEFENDANT ANALYZED THE COST-EFFICIENCY

OF THE ON-BOARD CHARGER PROJECT. 

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 38 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-39-

54. AS OF ITS SELECTION OF TK TO DEVELOP THE ON-BOARD CHARGER,

DEFENDANT WAS AWARE THAT THERE WERE SAFETY ISSUES

ASSOCIATED WITH AN ON-BOARD HIGH FREQUENCY CHARGER

APPLICATION. 

55. DEFENDANT IDENTIFIED A SAFETY ISSUE ASSOCIATED WITH THE AC

CABLE. 

56. A DFMEA IS A “DESIGN FAILURE MODES EFFECTS ANALYSIS,” OR A

PROCESS DESIGNED TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL OPERATIONAL AND/OR

SAFETY ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH A MANUFACTURED PRODUCT. 

57. WHEN DEFENDANT DECIDED TO TERMINATE THE ON-BOARD CHARGER

PROJECT, IT WAS AWARE OF SAFETY CONCERNS WITH USAGE OF AN

ON-BOARD CHARGER IDENTIFIED IN PART BY A DFMEA. 

58. DEFENDANT MADE THE DECISION TO TERMINATE THE DEVELOPMENT

OF AN ON-BOARD CHARGER BASED IN PART ON SAFETY CONCERNS. 

59. MARKETING RESEARCH PERFORMED IN LATE 2003 WAS ONE OF

SEVERAL FACTORS THAT LED DEFENDANT TO ITS DECISION TO STOP

THE ON-BOARD CHARGER PROJECT. 

60. COST WAS A CONSIDERATION, AMONG MANY CONSIDERATIONS,

AFFECTING DEFENDANT’S CHOICES REGARDING BATTERY CHARGING

SYSTEMS, INCLUDING THE DECISION TO TERMINATE THE ON-BOARD

BATTERY CHARGER. 

61. DEFENDANT STUDIED MARKET PRICES FOR HIGH FREQUENCY

CHARGERS GENERALLY AND THE MARKET PRICE FOR HIGH

FREQUENCY CHARGERS GENERALLY DROPPED BETWEEN THE TIME

THAT DEFENDANT RETAINED TK TO DEVELOP A HIGH FREQUENCY

CHARGER FOR IT AND JANUARY 2004. 

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 39 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-40-

62. DEFENDANT HAS NEVER INCLUDED AN ON-BOARD CHARGER IN ANY

OF ITS GOLF CARS THAT WERE MANUFACTURED FOR PUBLIC

CONSUMPTION. 

63. IN AN EMAIL DATED OCTOBER 29, 2003, ROBERT TAYLOR TOLD HEARN

THAT TK HAD BEEN “CONDUCTING A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF

TESTING” AND THAT THE “[TEST] RESULTS LOOK REASONABLY GOOD.” 

64. IN AN EMAIL DATED OCTOBER 29, 2003, ROBERT TAYLOR TOLD

CARLTON HEARN THAT TK WAS “ORGANIZING [ITS] TEST AND

VALIDATION WITH THE MANUFACTURER AND WE WOULD LIKE TO DO

A COMPLETE DESIGN SPECIFICATION REVIEW IN THE NEAR FUTURE

ONCE YOU HAVE EXAMINED THE UNIT WE HAVE HERE.” 

65. IN THE FALL OF 2003, TK TOLD DEFENDANT THAT TK HAD AN

ON-BOARD CHARGER THAT FUNCTIONED PER THE REQUIRED

SPECIFICATIONS. 

66. ROGER YANG WAS EMPLOYED BY DEFENDANT IN FEBRUARY 2004. 

67. DEFENDANT REQUESTED THAT ROGER YANG CONDUCT SOME TESTS

ON A PROTOTYPE ON-BOARD CHARGER IT RECEIVED FROM TK. 

68. ROGER YANG CONCLUDED THAT THE RELIABILITY OF THE ON-BOARD

CHARGER DEFENDANT RECEIVED FROM TK WAS VERIFIABLE FOR

SEVEN CYCLES. 

69. ROGER YANG DETERMINED THAT THE ON-BOARD CHARGER

DEFENDANT RECEIVED FROM TK WORKED WELL OVER SEVEN CYCLES,

MEANING THAT IT FUNCTIONED TO RECHARGE SIX THIRTY-SIX VOLT

GOLF CAR BATTERIES. 

70. AS OF OCTOBER 2005, DEFENDANT HAD NOT PRODUCED A GOLF CAR IT

CALLED A “NEXT GENERATION GOLF CAR” FOR PUBLIC USE.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 40 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-41-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 30

ESSENTIAL FACTUAL ELEMENTS

TK POWER CLAIMS THAT IT AND TEXTRON/E-Z-GO ENTERED INTO A

CONTRACT FOR TK POWER TO DEVELOP AN ON-BOARD BATTERY CHARGER AND

THEN FOR TEXTRON/E-Z-GO TO PURCHASE 75,000 BATTERY CHARGERS FOR UP TO 3

YEARS AFTER DEVELOPMENT OF THE ON-BOARD BATTERY CHARGER BY TK

POWER.

TK POWER CLAIMS THAT TEXTRON/E-Z-GO BREACHED THIS CONTRACT BY

REPUDIATING THE CONTRACT DURING THE COURSE OF DEVELOPMENT. 

TK POWER ALSO CLAIMS THAT TEXTRON/E-Z-GO ‘S BREACH OF THIS

CONTRACT CAUSED HARM TO TK POWER FOR WHICH TEXTRON/E-Z-GO SHOULD

PAY.

TEXTRON/E-Z-GO DENIES THESE ALLEGATIONS AND CLAIMS THAT ITS

CONTRACT WITH TK WAS CANCELED DUE TO TK’S OWN BREACH OF THE

AGREEMENT BY FAILURE TO TIMELY TENDER DELIVERY OF SOFTWARE CODING,

FIVE WORKING PROTOTYPES, AND FIVE HEATSINKS AS REQUIRED BY THE

CONTRACT. 

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 41 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-42-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 31

CONTRACT FORMATION -- ESSENTIAL FACTUAL ELEMENTS

TK POWER CLAIMS THAT THE PARTIES ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT. TO

PROVE THAT A CONTRACT WAS CREATED, TK POWER MUST PROVE ALL OF THE

FOLLOWING:

1. THAT THE CONTRACT TERMS WERE CLEAR ENOUGH THAT THE

PARTIES COULD UNDERSTAND WHAT EACH WAS REQUIRED TO DO;

2. THAT THE PARTIES AGREED TO GIVE EACH OTHER SOMETHING OF

VALUE. A PROMISE TO DO SOMETHING OR NOT TO DO SOMETHING MAY

HAVE VALUE; AND

3. THAT THE PARTIES AGREED TO THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT.

WHEN YOU EXAMINE WHETHER THE PARTIES AGREED TO THE TERMS OF THE

CONTRACT, ASK YOURSELF IF, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, A REASONABLE

PERSON WOULD CONCLUDE, FROM THE WORDS AND CONDUCT OF EACH PARTY,

THAT THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT. YOU MAY NOT CONSIDER THE PARTIES’ HIDDEN

INTENTIONS.

IF TK POWER DID NOT PROVE ALL OF THE ABOVE, THEN A CONTRACT WAS

NOT CREATED.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 42 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-43-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 32

BREACH OF CONTRACT -- ESSENTIAL FACTUAL ELEMENTS

TO RECOVER DAMAGES FROM TEXTRON/E-Z-GO FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT,

TK POWER MUST PROVE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. THAT TK POWER AND TEXTRON/E-Z-GO ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT

FOR TK POWER TO DEVELOP AN ON-BOARD BATTERY CHARGER AND

THEN FOR TEXTRON/E-Z-GO TO PURCHASE 75,000 BATTERY CHARGERS

FOR UP TO 3 YEARS AFTER DEVELOPMENT OF THE ON-BOARD BATTERY

CHARGER BY TK POWER;

2. THAT TK POWER DID ALL, OR SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF THE

SIGNIFICANT THINGS THAT THE CONTRACT REQUIRED IT TO DO OR

THAT IT WAS EXCUSED FROM HAVING TO DO THOSE THINGS;

3. THAT ALL CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR TEXTRON/E-Z-GO ‘S

PERFORMANCE HAD OCCURRED;

4. THAT TEXTRON/E-Z-GO FAILED TO DO SOMETHING THAT THE

CONTRACT REQUIRED IT TO DO; AND

5. THAT TK POWER WAS HARMED BY THAT FAILURE.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 43 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-44-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 33

ORAL OR WRITTEN CONTRACT TERMS

CONTRACTS MAY BE WRITTEN OR ORAL.

CONTRACTS MAY BE PARTLY WRITTEN AND PARTLY ORAL.

ORAL CONTRACTS ARE JUST AS VALID AS WRITTEN CONTRACTS.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 44 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-45-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 34

IMPLIED-IN-FACT CONTRACT

IN DECIDING WHETHER A CONTRACT WAS CREATED, YOU SHOULD CONSIDER

THE CONDUCT AND RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES AS WELL AS ALL THE

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

CONTRACTS CAN BE CREATED BY THE CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES, WITHOUT

SPOKEN OR WRITTEN WORDS. CONTRACTS CREATED BY CONDUCT ARE JUST AS

VALID AS CONTRACTS FORMED WITH WORDS.

CONDUCT WILL CREATE A CONTRACT IF THE CONDUCT OF BOTH PARTIES IS

INTENTIONAL AND EACH KNOWS, OR HAS REASON TO KNOW, THAT THE OTHER

PARTY WILL INTERPRET THE CONDUCT AS AN AGREEMENT TO ENTER INTO A

CONTRACT.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 45 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-46-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 35

SUBSTANTIAL PERFORMANCE

TEXTRON/E-Z-GO CONTENDS THAT TK POWER DID NOT PERFORM ALL OF THE

THINGS THAT IT WAS REQUIRED TO DO UNDER THE CONTRACT, AND THEREFORE

TEXTRON/E-Z-GO DID NOT HAVE TO PERFORM ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE

CONTRACT. TO OVERCOME THIS CONTENTION, TK POWER MUST PROVE BOTH OF

THE FOLLOWING:

1. THAT TK POWER MADE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO COMPLY WITH THE

CONTRACT; AND

2. THAT TEXTRON/E-Z-GO RECEIVED ESSENTIALLY WHAT THE CONTRACT

CALLED FOR BECAUSE TK POWER ‘S FAILURES, IF ANY, WERE SO

TRIVIAL OR UNIMPORTANT THAT THEY COULD HAVE BEEN EASILY

FIXED OR PAID FOR.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 46 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-47-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 36

MODIFICATION

TK POWER CLAIMS THAT THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT WAS MODIFIED, OR

CHANGED. TK POWER MUST PROVE THAT THE PARTIES AGREED TO THE

MODIFICATION. TEXTRON/E-Z-GO DENIES THAT THE CONTRACT WAS MODIFIED.

THE PARTIES TO A CONTRACT MAY AGREE TO MODIFY ITS TERMS. YOU MUST

DECIDE WHETHER A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD CONCLUDE FROM THE WORDS

AND CONDUCT OF TK POWER AND TEXTRON/E-Z-GO THAT THEY AGREED TO

MODIFY THE CONTRACT. YOU CANNOT CONSIDER THE PARTIES’ HIDDEN

INTENTIONS.

A CONTRACT IN WRITING MAY BE MODIFIED BY A CONTRACT IN WRITING.

A CONTRACT IN WRITING MAY BE MODIFIED BY AN ORAL AGREEMENT TO

THE EXTENT THE ORAL AGREEMENT IS CARRIED OUT BY THE PARTIES.

A CONTRACT IN WRITING MAY BE MODIFIED BY AN ORAL AGREEMENT IF THE

PARTIES AGREE TO GIVE EACH OTHER SOMETHING OF VALUE.

AN ORAL CONTRACT MAY BE MODIFIED BY CONSENT OF THE PARTIES, IN

WRITING, WITHOUT AN AGREEMENT TO GIVE EACH OTHER SOMETHING OF VALUE.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 47 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-48-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 37

INTERPRETATION -- MEANING OF ORDINARY WORDS

YOU SHOULD ASSUME THAT THE PARTIES INTENDED THE WORDS IN THEIR

CONTRACT TO HAVE THEIR USUAL AND ORDINARY MEANING UNLESS YOU DECIDE

THAT THE PARTIES INTENDED THE WORDS TO HAVE A SPECIAL MEANING.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 48 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-49-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 38

INTERPRETATION -- MEANING OF TECHNICAL WORDS

YOU SHOULD ASSUME THAT THE PARTIES INTENDED TECHNICAL WORDS

USED IN THE CONTRACT TO HAVE THE MEANING THAT IS USUALLY GIVEN TO THEM

BY PEOPLE WHO WORK IN THAT TECHNICAL FIELD, UNLESS YOU DECIDE THAT THE

PARTIES CLEARLY USED THE WORDS IN A DIFFERENT SENSE.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 49 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-50-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 39

INTERPRETATION -- CONSTRUCTION OF CONTRACT AS A WHOLE

IN DECIDING WHAT THE WORDS OF A CONTRACT MEANT TO THE PARTIES,

YOU SHOULD CONSIDER THE WHOLE CONTRACT, NOT JUST ISOLATED PARTS. YOU

SHOULD USE EACH PART TO HELP YOU INTERPRET THE OTHERS, SO THAT ALL THE

PARTS MAKE SENSE WHEN TAKEN TOGETHER.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 50 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-51-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 40

INTERPRETATION -- CONSTRUCTION BY CONDUCT

IN DECIDING WHAT THE WORDS IN A CONTRACT MEANT TO THE PARTIES,

YOU MAY CONSIDER HOW THE PARTIES ACTED AFTER THE CONTRACT WAS

CREATED BUT BEFORE ANY DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES AROSE.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 51 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-52-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 41

INTERPRETATION -- CONSTRUCTION AGAINST DRAFTER

IN DETERMINING THE MEANING OF A TERM OF THE CONTRACT, YOU MUST

FIRST CONSIDER ALL OF THE OTHER INSTRUCTIONS THAT I HAVE GIVEN YOU. IF,

AFTER CONSIDERING THESE INSTRUCTIONS, YOU STILL CANNOT AGREE ON THE

MEANING OF THE TERM, THEN YOU SHOULD INTERPRET THE CONTRACT TERM

AGAINST THE PARTY THAT DRAFTED THE TERM OR THE PARTY THAT CAUSED THE

UNCERTAINTY, WHICHEVER THE CASE MAY BE.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 52 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-53-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 42

INTERPRETATION -- REASONABLE TIME

IF YOU FIND THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT ON A SPECIFIC TIME IN WHICH THE

PARTIES ARE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONTRACT, THEN THE PARTIES

MUST MEET THEM WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME. WHAT IS A REASONABLE TIME

DEPENDS ON THE FACTS OF EACH CASE, INCLUDING THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE

CONTRACT, THE REASONS EACH PARTY ENTERED INTO THE CONTRACT, AND THE

INTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES AT THE TIME THEY ENTERED THE CONTRACT.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 53 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-54-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 43

WHEN TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE

THE GENERAL RULE IS THAT TIME IS NOT OF THE ESSENCE WITH RESPECT TO

PERFORMANCE UNDER AN AGREEMENT UNLESS THE PARTIES HAVE EXPRESSLY

AGREED OTHERWISE. ANY SUCH AGREEMENT MUST BE SHOWN IN CLEAR,

UNEQUIVOCAL AND UNMISTAKABLE LANGUAGE. IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT A TIME

IS MENTIONED DURING WHICH OR BEFORE WHICH SOMETHING SHALL BE DONE.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 54 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-55-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 44

DELAY IN PERFORMANCE

IF YOU FIND THAT TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE AS TO ANY OBLIGATION UNDER A

CONTRACT, ANY DELAY IN PERFORMANCE OF THAT OBLIGATION, WHETHER

REASONABLE OR NOT, IS A BREACH OF THAT OBLIGATION. IF YOU FIND THAT TIME

IS NOT OF THE ESSENCE FOR THAT OBLIGATION, DELAY IN ITS PERFORMANCE, IF

REASONABLE, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A BREACH OF THAT OBLIGATION.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 55 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-56-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 45

DELAY IN PERFORMANCE EXCUSED

ANY DELAY BY TK POWER IN PERFORMANCE IS EXCUSED TO THE EXTENT

ACTS OF TEXTRON/E-Z-GO CAUSED ANY SUCH DELAY.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 56 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-57-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 46

ANTICIPATORY BREACH

AN UNJUSTIFIED OR UNEXCUSED REPUDIATION OF OR FAILURE TO PERFORM

A CONTRACT AT THE TIME OF PERFORMANCE IS DUE IS AN ACTUAL BREACH. A

REPUDIATION WHICH OCCURS BEFORE THE TIME WHEN PERFORMANCE IS DUE IS A

BREACH BY ANTICIPATORY REPUDIATION, SOMETIMES REFERRED TO AS AN

ANTICIPATORY BREACH. WHEN AN ANTICIPATORY BREACH OCCURS, THE INJURED

PARTY MAY WITHOUT COMPLETING ITS PERFORMANCE EITHER SUE IMMEDIATELY,

OR WAIT UNTIL THE TIME FOR PERFORMANCE, AND THEN EXERCISE ITS RIGHTS

FOR ACTUAL BREACH OF CONTRACT.

AN ANTICIPATORY REPUDIATION OR BREACH MAY BE EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. 

A PARTY WHICH EXPRESSLY REPUDIATES THE CONTRACT BY AN UNEQUIVOCAL

REFUSAL TO PERFORM, COMMITS AN EXPRESS ANTICIPATORY BREACH OR

REPUDIATION. A PARTY WHICH PUTS IT OUT OF ITS POWER TO PERFORM THE

PROMISE, COMMITS AN IMPLIED ANTICIPATORY BREACH OR REPUDIATION. IN

ORDER TO ESTABLISH A BREACH OF CONTRACT DUE TO AN ANTICIPATORY BREACH

OR REPUDIATION, THE PARTY CLAIMING SUCH BREACH MUST PROVE IT HAD THE

ABILITY TO PERFORM.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 57 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-58-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 47

WAIVER OF CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS

TK POWER CLAIMS THAT TEXTRON/E-Z-GO WAIVED CERTAIN CONTRACTUAL

RIGHTS, WHICH EXCUSED OR MODIFIED TK POWER’S OBLIGATIONS. TIMELINESS

PROVISIONS ARE SUBJECT TO WAIVER BY THE PARTY FOR WHOSE BENEFIT THEY

ARE MADE. WAIVER IS THE INTENTIONAL RELINQUISHMENT OF A KNOWN RIGHT

AFTER KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS. THE WAIVER MAY BE AN EXPRESS

STATEMENT, OR IT MAY BE IMPLIED, AS WHERE THE PARTY ENTITLED TO CERTAIN

PERFORMANCE ACCEPTS PARTIAL OR DEFECTIVE PERFORMANCE. TO PROVE THAT

TEXTRON/E-Z-GO WAIVED ANY RIGHTS UNDER THE AGREEMENT, TK POWER MUST

PROVE THAT TEXTRON/E-Z-GO KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY RELINQUISHED A

KNOWN CONTRACTUAL RIGHT. AS THE PARTY CLAIMING A WAIVER, THE BURDEN

IS ON TK POWER TO PROVE IT BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT DOES

NOT LEAVE THE MATTER TO SPECULATION.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 58 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-59-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 48

INTRODUCTION TO CONTRACT DAMAGES

IF YOU DECIDE THAT TK POWER HAS PROVED ITS CLAIM AGAINST

TEXTRON/E-Z-GO FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, YOU ALSO MUST DECIDE HOW MUCH

MONEY WILL REASONABLY COMPENSATE TK POWER FOR THE HARM CAUSED BY

THE BREACH. THIS COMPENSATION IS CALLED “DAMAGES.” THE PURPOSE OF SUCH

DAMAGES IS TO PUT THE NON-BREACHING PARTY IN AS GOOD A POSITION AS IT

WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD THE OTHER PERFORMED AS PROMISED.

TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR ANY HARM, THE PARTY MUST PROVE:

1. THAT THE HARM WAS LIKELY TO ARISE IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF

EVENTS FROM THE BREACH OF THE CONTRACT; OR

2. THAT WHEN THE CONTRACT WAS MADE, BOTH PARTIES COULD HAVE

REASONABLY FORESEEN THE HARM AS THE PROBABLE RESULT OF THE

BREACH.

TK POWER ALSO MUST PROVE THE AMOUNT OF ITS DAMAGES ACCORDING

TO THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS. IT DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVE THE EXACT

AMOUNT OF DAMAGES. YOU MUST NOT SPECULATE OR GUESS IN AWARDING

DAMAGES. 

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 59 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-60-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 49

LOSS OF PROFITS -- NO PROFITS EARNED

TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR LOST PROFITS, TK POWER MUST PROVE THAT IT

IS REASONABLY CERTAIN IT WOULD HAVE EARNED PROFITS BUT FOR TEXTRON/EZ-GO’S BREACH OF THE CONTRACT.

TO DECIDE THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES FOR LOST PROFITS, YOU MUST

DETERMINE THE GROSS, OR TOTAL, AMOUNT TK POWER WOULD HAVE RECEIVED IF

THE CONTRACT HAD BEEN PERFORMED AND THEN SUBTRACT FROM THAT AMOUNT

THE COSTS INCLUDING THE VALUE OF THE

LABOR/MATERIALS/RENTS/EXPENSES/INTEREST ON LOANS INVESTED IN THE

BUSINESS TK POWER WOULD HAVE HAD IF THE CONTRACT HAD BEEN PERFORMED.

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO CALCULATE THE AMOUNT OF THE LOST PROFITS WITH

MATHEMATICAL PRECISION, BUT THERE MUST BE A REASONABLE BASIS FOR

COMPUTING THE LOSS.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 60 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-61-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 50

OBLIGATION TO PAY MONEY ONLY

TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR THE BREACH OF A CONTRACT TO PAY MONEY,

TK POWER MUST PROVE THE AMOUNT DUE UNDER THE CONTRACT.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 61 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-62-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 51

PRESENT CASH VALUE OF FUTURE DAMAGES

TO RECOVER FOR FUTURE HARM, TK POWER MUST PROVE THAT SUCH HARM

IS REASONABLY CERTAIN TO OCCUR AND MUST PROVE THE AMOUNT OF THOSE

FUTURE DAMAGES. THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES FOR FUTURE HARM MUST BE

REDUCED TO PRESENT CASH VALUE. THIS IS NECESSARY BECAUSE MONEY

RECEIVED NOW WILL, THROUGH INVESTMENT, GROW TO A LARGER AMOUNT IN

THE FUTURE.

TO FIND PRESENT CASH VALUE, YOU MUST DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF

MONEY WHICH, IF REASONABLY INVESTED TODAY, WILL PROVIDE TK POWER WITH

THE AMOUNT OF ITS FUTURE DAMAGES.

YOU MAY CONSIDER EXPERT TESTIMONY IN DETERMINING THE PRESENT

CASH VALUE OF FUTURE DAMAGES.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 62 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-63-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 52

MITIGATION OF DAMAGES

IF TEXTRON/E-Z-GO BREACHED THE CONTRACT AND THE BREACH CAUSED

HARM, TK POWER IS NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR HARM THAT

TEXTRON/E-Z-GO PROVES TK POWER COULD HAVE AVOIDED WITH REASONABLE

EFFORTS OR EXPENDITURES. YOU SHOULD CONSIDER THE REASONABLENESS OF

TK POWER’S EFFORTS IN LIGHT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES FACING IT AT THE TIME,

INCLUDING ITS ABILITY TO MAKE THE EFFORTS OR EXPENDITURES WITHOUT

UNDUE RISK OR HARDSHIP. 

IF TK POWER MADE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO AVOID HARM, THEN YOUR

AWARD SHOULD INCLUDE REASONABLE AMOUNTS THAT IT SPENT FOR THIS

PURPOSE.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 63 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-64-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 53

JURY INSTRUCTION REMOVED

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 64 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-65-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 54

FALSE PROMISE

TK POWER CLAIMS IT WAS HARMED BECAUSE TEXTRON/E-Z-GO MADE A

FALSE PROMISE. TO ESTABLISH THIS CLAIM, TK POWER MUST PROVE ALL OF THE

FOLLOWING:

1. THAT TEXTRON/E-Z-GO MADE A PROMISE TO TK POWER;

2. THAT THIS PROMISE WAS IMPORTANT TO THE TRANSACTION;

3. THAT TEXTRON/E-Z-GO DID NOT INTEND TO PERFORM THIS PROMISE

WHEN IT MADE IT;

4. THAT TEXTRON/E-Z-GO INTENDED THAT TK POWER RELY ON THIS

PROMISE;

5. THAT TK POWER REASONABLY RELIED ON TEXTRON/E-Z-GO’S

PROMISE;

6. THAT TEXTRON/E-Z-GO DID NOT PERFORM THE PROMISED ACT;

7. THAT TK POWER WAS HARMED; AND

8. THAT TK POWER’S RELIANCE ON TEXTRON/E-Z-GO’S PROMISE WAS A

SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR IN CAUSING ITS HARM.

NON-PERFORMANCE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH A FALSE PROMISE

BUT MAY BE CONSIDERED AS ONE OF MANY FACTORS.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 65 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-66-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 55

NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

TK POWER CLAIMS IT WAS HARMED BECAUSE TEXTRON/E-Z-GO

NEGLIGENTLY MISREPRESENTED AN IMPORTANT FACT. TO ESTABLISH THIS CLAIM,

TK POWER MUST PROVE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. THAT TEXTRON/E-Z-GO REPRESENTED TO TK POWER THAT AN

IMPORTANT FACT WAS TRUE;

2. THAT TEXTRON/E-Z-GO’S REPRESENTATION WAS NOT TRUE;

3. THAT TEXTRON/E-Z-GO HAD NO REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR

BELIEVING THE REPRESENTATION WAS TRUE WHEN IT MADE IT;

4. THAT TEXTRON/E-Z-GO INTENDED THAT TK POWER RELY ON THIS

REPRESENTATION;

5. THAT TK POWER REASONABLY RELIED ON TEXTRON/E-Z-GO’S

REPRESENTATION;

6. THAT TK POWER WAS HARMED; AND

7. THAT TK POWER’S RELIANCE ON TEXTRON/E-Z-GO’S REPRESENTATION

WAS A SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR IN CAUSING ITS HARM.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 66 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-67-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 56

RELIANCE

TK POWER RELIED ON TEXTRON/E-Z-GO’S MISREPRESENTATION IF IT CAUSED

IT TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT, AND IF IT WOULD PROBABLY NOT HAVE DONE

SO WITHOUT SUCH MISREPRESENTATION.

IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR A MISREPRESENTATION TO BE THE ONLY REASON

FOR TK POWER’S CONDUCT. IT IS ENOUGH IF A MISREPRESENTATION

SUBSTANTIALLY INFLUENCED TK POWER’S CHOICE, EVEN IF IT WAS NOT THE ONLY

REASON FOR ITS CONDUCT.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 67 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-68-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 57

INTRODUCTION TO TORT DAMAGES -- LIABILITY CONTESTED

IF YOU DECIDE THAT TK POWER HAS PROVED ANY ONE OF ITS CLAIMS FOR

NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION OR FALSE PROMISE AGAINST TEXTRON/E-Z-GO,

YOU ALSO MUST DECIDE HOW MUCH MONEY WILL REASONABLY COMPENSATE TK

POWER FOR THE HARM. THIS COMPENSATION IS CALLED “DAMAGES.”

THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES MUST INCLUDE AN AWARD FOR EACH ITEM OF

HARM THAT WAS CAUSED BY TEXTRON/E-Z-GO’S WRONGFUL CONDUCT, EVEN IF

THE PARTICULAR HARM COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANTICIPATED.

TK POWER DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVE THE EXACT AMOUNT OF DAMAGES

THAT WILL PROVIDE REASONABLE COMPENSATION FOR THE HARM. HOWEVER,

YOU MUST NOT SPECULATE OR GUESS IN AWARDING DAMAGES.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 68 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-69-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 58

DAMAGES -- “OUT OF POCKET” RULE

IF YOU DECIDE THAT TK POWER HAS PROVED ITS CLAIM AGAINST

TEXTRON/E-Z-GO, YOU ALSO MUST DECIDE HOW MUCH MONEY WILL REASONABLY

COMPENSATE TK POWER FOR THE HARM. THIS COMPENSATION IS CALLED

“DAMAGES.”

THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES MUST INCLUDE AN AWARD FOR ALL HARM THAT

TEXTRON/E-Z-GO WAS A SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR IN CAUSING, EVEN IF THE

PARTICULAR HARM COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANTICIPATED.

TK POWER MUST PROVE THE AMOUNT OF ITS DAMAGES. HOWEVER, TK

POWER DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVE THE EXACT AMOUNT OF DAMAGES THAT WILL

PROVIDE REASONABLE COMPENSATION FOR THE HARM. YOU MUST NOT

SPECULATE OR GUESS IN AWARDING DAMAGES.

TK POWER MAY RECOVER AMOUNTS THAT IT REASONABLY SPENT IN

RELIANCE ON TEXTRON/E-Z-GO’S FALSE REPRESENTATION OR FALSE PROMISE IF

THOSE AMOUNTS WOULD NOT OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN SPENT. TK POWER AGREES

THAT IT RECEIVED PAYMENT OF $33,750 FROM TEXTRON/E-Z-GO, WHICH AMOUNT,

ALONG WITH ANY OTHER VALUE RECEIVED FROM TEXTRON/E-Z-GO, MUST BE

DEDUCTED FROM ANY TK POWER CLAIM FOR “OUT OF POCKET” DAMAGES.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 69 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-70-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 59

ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL NOT EVIDENCE OF DAMAGES

THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ATTORNEYS ARE NOT EVIDENCE OF DAMAGES.

YOUR AWARD MUST BE BASED ON YOUR REASONED JUDGMENT APPLIED TO THE

TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES AND THE OTHER EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN

ADMITTED DURING TRIAL.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 70 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-71-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 60

PUNITIVE DAMAGES -- ENTITY DEFENDANT -- BIFURCATED TRIAL (FIRST PHASE)

IF YOU DECIDE THAT TEXTRON/E-Z-GO COMMITTED A TORT OF FALSE

PROMISE AGAINST TK POWER, YOU MUST DECIDE WHETHER THAT CONDUCT

JUSTIFIES AN AWARD OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES. THE AMOUNT, IF ANY, OF PUNITIVE

DAMAGES WILL BE AN ISSUE DECIDED LATER.

AT THIS TIME, YOU MUST DECIDE WHETHER TK POWER HAS PROVED THAT

TEXTRON/E-Z-GO ENGAGED IN THAT CONDUCT WITH MALICE, OPPRESSION, OR

FRAUD. TO DO THIS, TK POWER MUST PROVE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING BY CLEAR

AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE:

1. THAT THE CONDUCT CONSTITUTING MALICE, OPPRESSION, OR FRAUD

WAS COMMITTED BY ONE OR MORE OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, OR

MANAGING AGENTS OF TEXTRON/E-Z-GO WHO ACTED ON BEHALF OF

TEXTRON/E-Z-GO; OR

2. THAT THE CONDUCT CONSTITUTING MALICE, OPPRESSION, OR FRAUD

WAS AUTHORIZED BY ONE OR MORE OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, OR

MANAGING AGENTS OF TEXTRON/E-Z-GO; OR

3. THAT ONE OR MORE OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, OR MANAGING AGENTS OF

TEXTRON/E-Z-GO KNEW OF THE CONDUCT CONSTITUTING MALICE,

OPPRESSION, OR FRAUD AND ADOPTED OR APPROVED THAT CONDUCT

AFTER IT OCCURRED.

“MALICE” MEANS THAT TEXTRON/E-Z-GO ACTED WITH INTENT TO CAUSE

INJURY OR THAT TEXTRON/E-Z-GO’S CONDUCT WAS DESPICABLE AND WAS DONE

WITH A WILLFUL AND KNOWING DISREGARD OF THE RIGHTS OR SAFETY OF

ANOTHER. A PERSON ACTS WITH KNOWING DISREGARD WHEN HE OR SHE IS AWARE

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 71 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-72-

OF THE PROBABLE DANGEROUS CONSEQUENCES OF HIS OR HER CONDUCT AND

DELIBERATELY FAILS TO AVOID THOSE CONSEQUENCES.

“OPPRESSION” MEANS THAT TEXTRON/E-Z-GO’S CONDUCT WAS DESPICABLE

AND SUBJECTED TK POWER TO CRUEL AND UNJUST HARDSHIP IN KNOWING

DISREGARD OF ITS RIGHTS.

“DESPICABLE CONDUCT” IS CONDUCT THAT IS SO VILE, BASE, OR

CONTEMPTIBLE THAT IT WOULD BE LOOKED DOWN ON AND DESPISED BY

REASONABLE PEOPLE.

“FRAUD” MEANS THAT TEXTRON/E-Z-GO INTENTIONALLY MISREPRESENTED

OR CONCEALED A MATERIAL FACT AND DID SO INTENDING TO HARM TK POWER.

AN EMPLOYEE IS A “MANAGING AGENT” IF HE OR SHE EXERCISES

SUBSTANTIAL INDEPENDENT AUTHORITY AND JUDGMENT IN HIS OR HER

CORPORATE DECISION MAKING SO THAT HIS OR HER DECISIONS ULTIMATELY

DETERMINE CORPORATE POLICY.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 72 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-73-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 61

DUTY TO DELIBERATE

WHEN YOU BEGIN YOUR DELIBERATIONS, YOU SHOULD ELECT ONE MEMBER

OF THE JURY AS YOUR PRESIDING JUROR. THAT PERSON WILL PRESIDE OVER THE

DELIBERATIONS AND SPEAK FOR YOU HERE IN COURT.

YOU WILL THEN DISCUSS THE CASE WITH YOUR FELLOW JURORS TO REACH

AGREEMENT IF YOU CAN DO SO. YOUR VERDICT MUST BE UNANIMOUS.

EACH OF YOU MUST DECIDE THE CASE FOR YOURSELF, BUT YOU SHOULD DO

SO ONLY AFTER YOU HAVE CONSIDERED ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, DISCUSSED IT

FULLY WITH THE OTHER JURORS, AND LISTENED TO THE VIEWS OF YOUR FELLOW

JURORS.

DO NOT BE AFRAID TO CHANGE YOUR OPINION IF THE DISCUSSION

PERSUADES YOU THAT YOU SHOULD. DO NOT COME TO A DECISION SIMPLY

BECAUSE OTHER JURORS THINK IT IS RIGHT.

IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU ATTEMPT TO REACH A UNANIMOUS VERDICT

BUT, OF COURSE, ONLY IF EACH OF YOU CAN DO SO AFTER HAVING MADE YOUR

OWN CONSCIENTIOUS DECISION. DO NOT CHANGE AN HONEST BELIEF ABOUT THE

WEIGHT AND EFFECT OF THE EVIDENCE SIMPLY TO REACH A VERDICT.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 73 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-74-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 62

USE OF NOTES

SOME OF YOU HAVE TAKEN NOTES DURING THE TRIAL. WHETHER OR NOT

YOU TOOK NOTES, YOU SHOULD RELY ON YOUR OWN MEMORY OF WHAT WAS

SAID. NOTES ARE ONLY TO ASSIST YOUR MEMORY. YOU SHOULD NOT BE OVERLY

INFLUENCED BY THE NOTES.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 74 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-75-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 63

COMMUNICATION WITH COURT

IF IT BECOMES NECESSARY DURING YOUR DELIBERATIONS TO

COMMUNICATE WITH ME, YOU MAY SEND A NOTE THROUGH THE COURTROOM

DEPUTY, SIGNED BY YOUR PRESIDING JUROR OR BY ONE OR MORE MEMBERS OF

THE JURY. NO MEMBER OF THE JURY SHOULD EVER ATTEMPT TO COMMUNICATE

WITH ME EXCEPT BY A SIGNED WRITING; AND I WILL COMMUNICATE WITH ANY

MEMBER OF THE JURY ON ANYTHING CONCERNING THE CASE ONLY IN WRITING,

OR HERE IN OPEN COURT. IF YOU SEND OUT A QUESTION, I WILL CONSULT WITH

THE PARTIES BEFORE ANSWERING IT, WHICH MAY TAKE SOME TIME. YOU MAY

CONTINUE YOUR DELIBERATIONS WHILE WAITING FOR THE ANSWER TO ANY

QUESTION. REMEMBER THAT YOU ARE NOT TO TELL ANYONE -- INCLUDING ME --

HOW THE JURY STANDS, NUMERICALLY OR OTHERWISE, UNTIL AFTER YOU HAVE

REACHED A UNANIMOUS VERDICT OR HAVE BEEN DISCHARGED. DO NOT DISCLOSE

ANY VOTE COUNT IN ANY NOTE TO THE COURT.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 75 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-76-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 64

RETURN OF VERDICT

A VERDICT FORM HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR YOU. AFTER YOU HAVE

REACHED UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT ON A VERDICT, YOUR PRESIDING JUROR WILL

FILL IN THE FORM THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO YOU, SIGN AND DATE IT, AND ADVISE

THE COURT THAT YOU ARE READY TO RETURN TO THE COURTROOM.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 76 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-77-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 65

DETERMINING PUNITIVE DAMAGES

THERE IS NO FIXED STANDARD FOR DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF PUNITIVE

DAMAGES, AND YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO AWARD ANY PUNITIVE DAMAGES. IF

YOU DECIDE TO AWARD PUNITIVE DAMAGES, YOU SHOULD CONSIDER ALL OF THE

FOLLOWING IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT:

(A) HOW REPREHENSIBLE WAS TEXTRON/E-Z-GO’S CONDUCT?

(B) IS THERE A REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF

PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND TK POWER’S HARM?

(C) IN VIEW OF TEXTRON/E-Z-GO’S FINANCIAL CONDITION, WHAT AMOUNT

IS NECESSARY TO PUNISH IT AND DISCOURAGE FUTURE WRONGFUL

CONDUCT? YOU MAY NOT INCREASE THE PUNITIVE AWARD ABOVE AN

AMOUNT THAT IS OTHERWISE APPROPRIATE MERELY BECAUSE

TEXTRON/E-Z-GO HAS SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL RESOURCES. ANY

AWARD YOU IMPOSE MAY NOT EXCEED TEXTRON/E-Z-GO’S ABILITY TO

PAY.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 77 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-78-

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 66

DEADLOCKED JURY

MEMBERS OF THE JURY, YOU HAVE ADVISED THAT YOU HAVE BEEN UNABLE

TO AGREE UPON A VERDICT IN THIS CASE. I HAVE DECIDED TO SUGGEST A FEW

THOUGHTS TO YOU.

AS JURORS, YOU HAVE A DUTY TO DISCUSS THE CASE WITH ONE ANOTHER

AND TO DELIBERATE IN AN EFFORT TO REACH A UNANIMOUS VERDICT IF EACH OF

YOU CAN DO SO WITHOUT VIOLATING YOUR INDIVIDUAL JUDGMENT AND

CONSCIENCE. EACH OF YOU MUST DECIDE THE CASE FOR YOURSELF, BUT ONLY

AFTER YOU CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE IMPARTIALLY WITH YOUR FELLOW JURORS.

DURING YOUR DELIBERATIONS, YOU SHOULD NOT HESITATE TO REEXAMINE YOUR

OWN VIEWS AND CHANGE YOUR OPINION IF YOU BECOME PERSUADED THAT IT IS

WRONG. HOWEVER, YOU SHOULD NOT CHANGE AN HONEST BELIEF AS TO THE

WEIGHT OR EFFECT OF THE EVIDENCE SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE OPINIONS OF YOUR

FELLOW JURORS OR FOR THE MERE PURPOSE OF RETURNING A VERDICT.

ALL OF YOU ARE EQUALLY HONEST AND CONSCIENTIOUS JURORS WHO HAVE

HEARD THE SAME EVIDENCE. ALL OF YOU SHARE AN EQUAL DESIRE TO ARRIVE AT

A VERDICT. EACH OF YOU SHOULD ASK YOURSELF WHETHER YOU SHOULD

QUESTION THE CORRECTNESS OF YOUR PRESENT POSITION.

I REMIND YOU THAT IN YOUR DELIBERATIONS YOU ARE TO CONSIDER THE

INSTRUCTIONS I HAVE GIVEN YOU AS A WHOLE. YOU SHOULD NOT SINGLE OUT

ANY PART OF ANY INSTRUCTION, INCLUDING THIS ONE, AND IGNORE OTHERS.

THEY ARE ALL EQUALLY IMPORTANT.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 78 of 79
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-79-

YOU MAY NOW RETIRE AND CONTINUE YOUR DELIBERATIONS.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 223 Filed 05/19/06 Page 79 of 79