Opinion ID: 559511
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jury Instructions on Contract Interpretation

Text: 23 Collectors' Guild next contends that even if the district court correctly submitted the issue of contract interpretation to the jury, the court's jury instructions provided the jury with less than adequate guidance to interpret the contract. 24 In a diversity case, [t]he procedures governing jury instructions are governed by federal law. Proteus Books, 873 F.2d at 514. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 51, [n]o party may assign as error the giving or failure to give an instruction unless the party objects thereto ... stating distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds of the objection. Because Collectors' Guild failed to object to the district court's jury instructions at trial, we review Collectors' Guild's claim of error on appeal under the plain error standard. See, e.g., Proteus Books, 873 F.2d at 514; Cohen v. Franchard Corp., 478 F.2d 115, 124 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 857, 94 S.Ct. 161, 38 L.Ed.2d 106 (1973). An appellate court will reverse a jury charge on grounds of plain error only when reversal is necessary to correct a fundamental error or to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Cohen, 478 F.2d at 124. 25 As Collectors' Guild indicates, in instructing the jury, the district court referred to and discussed certain provisions of the January 29 contracts. However, the court did not, as Collectors' Guild contends, instruct[ ] the jury to interpret intent from the four corners of the agreement. Rather, to ascertain the parties' intent and to resolve the contractual ambiguity, the court explained to the jury that the jury could consider the parties' written or spoken words, other acts or conduct or their subsequent conduct. While the court could have elaborated on the precise types of extrinsic evidence the jury was to consider, we do not believe that its failure to do so deprived the jury of adequate legal guidance to reach a rational decision, thereby compelling us to invoke the plain error doctrine. See Frederic P. Wiedersum Associates v. National Homes Constr. Corp., 540 F.2d 62, 66 (2d Cir.1976). Accordingly, the challenged instruction does not rise to the level of plain error.