AMI 2410 Issues—Breach of Contract—Third Party Beneficiary Status—Issue of Fact
Ark. Model Jury Instr., Civil AMI 2410
Arkansas Model Jury Instructions-Civil
December 2023 Update
Chapter 24. Contracts
Contract Formation
AMI 2410 Issues—Breach of Contract—Third Party Beneficiary Status—Issue of Fact
[Plaintiff] claims damages from [defendant] for breach of contract as a third party beneficiary of a contract between [name of contracting party] and [defendant] and has the burden of proving each of five essential propositions:
First, that [name of contracting party] and [defendant] entered into a contract;
Second, that [name of contracting party] and [defendant] clearly intended to benefit [plaintiff] under the contract;
Third, that the contract required [defendant] to perform or not to perform a certain act;
Fourth, that [name of contracting party] did what the contract required of [him][her][it]; and
Fifth, that [defendant] did not do what the contract required of [him][her][it].
[If you find that [plaintiff] has proved each of these propositions, then your verdict should be for [plaintiff]. If, however, [plaintiff] has failed to prove any one or more of these propositions, then your verdict should be for [defendant].]
NOTE ON USE
Use this instruction instead of AMI 2401 when the plaintiff's contract claim is based upon his status as a third party beneficiary and the court has determined that the issue whether he is a third party beneficiary should be submitted to the jury. If the court has determined as a matter of law that the first two elements have been established, or if there is no dispute as to one or more of those elements, use AMI 2411.
The bracketed part of the instruction should not be given when the case is submitted on interrogatories.
COMMENT
Whether a person is a third party beneficiary to a contract is often a question of law for the court. Kremer v. Blissard Management & Realty, Inc., 289 Ark. 419, 711 S.W.2d 813 (1986). See also Little Rock Wastewater Utility v. Larry Moyer Trucking, Inc., 321 Ark. 303, 902 S.W.2d 760 (1995); Howell v. Worth James Const. Co., 259 Ark. 627, 535 S.W.2d 826 (1976). However, when the contract is ambiguous, and the meaning of the ambiguous language depends upon disputed extrinsic evidence, there may be an issue of fact for the jury as to whether a person is a third party beneficiary.
See generally Perry v. Baptist Health, 358 Ark. 238, 189 S.W.3d 54 (2004).
© 2023 Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Jury Instructions-Civil
| End of Document |