Opinion ID: 1978155
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Respondent's alleged breach of contract.

Text: Evidence was introduced tending to prove that Jolin had breached the agreement. In response to this evidence, the court instructed the jury as follows: You are further instructed that if Jolin failed to substantially perform his obligations in the joint venture, then Oster was entitled to treat the agreement as being at an end. If Oster so chose to treat the agreement as being at an end, then any actions or failures to act by him after that choice or election would not constitute a breach. The burden of proof to establish that Jolin failed to substantially perform his obligations in the joint venture is upon Oster. Appellant asserts that this instruction meant that Jolin's breaches were immaterial since Oster did not choose to rescind the contract. This conclusion is only valid in retrospectafter the jury's verdict. The court's instruction did not in any way say or imply that Oster did not rescind the contractit addressed the question squarely to the jury. This question was again basically one of the intent of the parties in view of the evidence presented. All the court said was that if Oster viewed the contract as breached by Jolin, he was free to disregard it. This is nothing more than the basic rule that substantial breach of contract discharges the injured party. [18] While appellant correctly notes that rescission would not be Oster's sole remedy, [19] on the facts of this case there would be no reason for the court to instruct the jury as to any other possible remedies simply because Oster did not attempt to seek any other remedy. Thus if he did consider Jolin to have breached the contract on the facts of this case the only remedy he might have sought was to disregard the contract. Oster also now claims that the court should have instructed the jury that Jolin had breached the agreement as a matter of law. No request for such a jury instruction was made nor was an objection raised in motions after verdict; thus the issue cannot be raised in this court. [20] In any event, as appellant himself admits, there was conflicting testimony on this issue and thus the issue was properly for jury determination. There was no error in the instruction.