Opinion ID: 2464090
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The jury instructions accurately stated Idaho employment contract law.

Text: Four Rivers contends that whether the parties entered into an employment contract is a disputed fact and that one of the instructions submitted to the jury infringed upon the jury's role as fact-finder because it instructed the jury that the parties agreed to some terms of an employment contract. The challenged instruction states: In this case, the Defendant alleges that all parties did not agree to all essential terms of a contract. This requirement is sometimes referred to as the meeting of the minds, and means that all parties to a contract must have understood and accepted all of the essential terms of the contract. There is no contract unless all of the essential terms have been communicated to all parties, understood by all parties, and accepted by all parties. (emphasis added). According to Four Rivers, the instruction's statement that the parties did not agree to all essential terms implies that the parties did agree to some terms. [1] This Court reviews jury instructions as a whole to determine whether a jury has been adequately instructed as to the issues presented and the law. Silver Creek Computers, Inc., 136 Idaho at 882, 42 P.3d at 675. In addition to the above-quoted jury instruction, the jury was instructed as to the elements of an enforceable contract, the presumption that an employment relationship is at will unless duration or justifications for discharge are specified, and Mackay's burden of proving both the existence of a contract and that Four Rivers breached the contract. Standing alone, the challenged jury instruction made it clear to the jury that there was no contract unless all of the essential terms of such contract were communicated, understood, and accepted by both Four Rivers and Mackay. The instruction plainly conditions the existence of an enforceable contract on the parties' communication and acceptance of all essential terms of a contract. We are unable to agree with Four Rivers' strained construction that this instruction advised the jury that the parties agreed to some, but not all terms of a contract, thereby infringing upon the jury's role as fact-finder. In any event, the other jury instructions emphasized to the jury that the relationship between Four Rivers and Mackay was one of at-will employment, absent mutual communication and acceptance of some other term. As the jury was accurately instructed as to the law and, in order to reach its verdict, was required to find that the parties agreed to all terms of the contract, we hold that the challenged jury instruction did not mislead the jury or infringe upon the jury's role as fact-finder.