Opinion ID: 479181
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Counts VIII and IX

Text: 62 The Employees theory below was that Ward's statements in the HONIRONEWS and in the pension brochure constituted an independent, contractual offer and that the employees who signed up for the Plan accepted the terms of that offer. The Employees argue that Ward's offer contained an implicit promise to pay full pension benefits to vested employees, and that this necessarily imposed a duty on Ward, in the event of Plan termination, to contribute the funds required to meet past service liabilities. 63 In 1978, the district court ruled that the employee brochure and the HONIRONEWS article, in isolation, reasonably could not be construed as a promise either to fund past service liabilities or to accelerate funding of the liabilities upon Plan termination. However, the court concluded that these publications, in conjunction with additional statements that might have been made at the time, would be relevant when interpreting the parties' agreement. Thus, in defining the issue, the court stated that the remaining inquiry as to Ward is whether circumstances surrounding the use of the newspaper and pamphlet alter the meaning otherwise derived from a plain reading of their representations. 64 The Employees contest the district court's characterization of the issue and its refusal to give plaintiffs' proposed jury instructions. 11 Although their arguments concerning jury instructions are unclear, they appear to contend that the court's instructions unnecessarily restricted and confused the presentation of their contract claims, and ignored their theory. Having compared the actual instructions that the court gave with the Employees' proposed instructions, we must disagree that the district court prejudiced the Employees' presentation of their contract theory. 12 65 In reviewing the adequacy of jury instructions, this court considers the charge as a whole to determine whether it is misleading or incorrectly states the law so as to prejudice the objecting party. Maddox, 792 F.2d at 1412; Coursen v. A.H. Robins, Co., 764 F.2d 1329, 1337 (9th Cir.), modified, 773 F.2d 1049 (9th Cir.1985). The court will not reverse a judgment because of a mistake in the instructions if the instructions fairly and adequately cover the issue presented. Id. 66 Here, the court's instructions did not mislead, and fairly and adequately covered all of the theories that the Employees sought to present. The Employees justifiably sought to place before the jury the issue whether a contract could be created, based on statements made outside the Plan document itself. See Kinoshita v. Canadian Pacific Airlines, Ltd., 724 P.2d 110, 117 (Haw.1986). The court instructed the jury to look at the written pension agreement, but also to examine the newsletter, the pamphlet, and oral statements to determine whether Ward promised to provide full pension benefits in the event of plan termination. This is precisely the theory that the Employees relied upon throughout the trial. 67 Although the court did not use the Employees' proposed language, the court was under no obligation to use any particular language offered by a party. Mitchell v. Keith, 752 F.2d 385, 389 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 3502, 87 L.Ed.2d 633 (1985). The court's only obligation was to fairly cover the issues. The court did so, and therefore did not err in its characterization of the claims, or in its instructions concerning them.