IN RE: STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CONTRACT AND BUSINESS CASES—2018 REPORT. (2018)

The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Contract and Business Cases (Committee) has submitted proposed changes to the standard jury instructions and asks that the Court authorize the amended standard instructions. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.

The Committee filed its report in this case proposing amendments to the “How to Use this Book” section, and to the following existing jury instructions: 416.4 (Breach of Contract—Essential Factual Elements); 416.20 (Interpretation—Construction Against Drafter); 416.24 (Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing); 416.25 (Affirmative Defense—Mutual Mistake of Fact); and 416.26 (Affirmative Defense—Unilateral Mistake of Fact).

In addition, the Committee proposes new instructions 416.41 (Misappropriation of Trade Secrets), 416.42 (Breach of Duty to Disclose—Residential), 416.43 (Piercing the Corporate Veil), 416.44 (Legal Status of Entities), and 416.46 (Promissory Estoppel).

Lastly, the Committee proposes adding a new Appendix B with an Introductory Guide and the following new model verdict forms: 416.2 (Model Form of Verdict for Third-Party Beneficiary of Contract Claim); 416.3 (Model Form of Verdict for Formation of Contract); 416.4 (Model Form of Verdict for Breach of Contract); 416.5 (Model Form of Verdict for Oral or Written Contract Terms); 416.6 (Model Form of Verdict for Contract Implied in Fact); 416.7 (Model Form of Verdict for Contract Implied in Law); 416.8 (Model Form of Verdict for Formation of Contract—Offer); 416.10 (Model Form of Verdict for Contract Formation—Acceptance); 416.11 (Model Form of Verdict for Contract Formation—Acceptance by Silence or Conduct); 416.12 (Model Form of Verdict for Substantial Performance of Contract); 416.13 (Model Form of Verdict for Modification of Terms(s) of Contract); 416.14 (Model Form of Verdict for Interpretation—Disputed Term(s) ); 416.15 (Model Form of Verdict for Interpretation—Meaning of Ordinary Words); 416.16 (Model Form of Verdict for Interpretation—Meaning of Disputed Technical or Special Words); 416.17 (Model Form of Verdict for Interpretation—Construction of Contract as a Whole); 416.18 (Model Form of Verdict for Interpretation—Construction by Conduct); 416.19 (Model Form of Verdict for Interpretation of Contract—Reasonable Time); 416.20 (Model Form of Verdict for Interpretation—Construction Against Drafter); 416.21 (Model Form of Verdict for Existence of Conditions Precedent Disputed); 416.22 (Model Form of Verdict for Occurrence of Agreed Condition Precedent of Contract Claim); 416.24 (Model Form of Verdict for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing); 416.25 (Model Form of Verdict for Affirmative Defense—Mutual Mistake of Fact); 416.32(a) (Model Form of Verdict for Affirmative Defense—Statute of Limitations); 416.32(b) (Model Form of Verdict for Statute of Limitations Defense in a Breach of Contract Case); 416.33 (Model Form of Verdict for Affirmative Defense—Equitable Estoppel); 416.35 (Model Form of Verdict for Affirmative Defense of Contract Claim—Judicial Estoppel); 416.36 (Model Form of Verdict for Affirmative Defense—Ratification); 416.37 (Model Form of Verdict for Goods Sold and Delivered); 416.38 (Model Form of Verdict for Open Account); 416.39 (Model Form of Verdict for Account Stated); 416.42 (Model Form of Verdict for Breach of Duty to Disclose—Residential); 416.43 (Model Form of Verdict for Piercing the Corporate Veil in Contract Claim); 416.44 (Model Form of Verdict for Legal Status of Entities in a Contract Claim); and 416.46 (Model Form of Verdict for Promissory Estoppel).

Because the Committee's proposals were published in the December 15, 2011, December 1, 2014, March 15, 2015, May 15, 2016, May 1, 2017, or September 1, 2017, issue of The Florida Bar News, with comments submitted in late 2014 and early 2015, the Court published the proposals in the July 1, 2018, edition of The Florida Bar News. No comments were received by the Court.

Having considered the Committee's report and the comments received by the Committee, we authorize the Committee's proposals for publication and use as set forth in the appendix to this opinion. New language is indicated by underlining and deleted language is indicated by struck-through type. In authorizing the publication and use of these instructions and verdict forms, we express no opinion on their correctness and remind all interested parties that this authorization forecloses neither requesting additional or alternative instructions or verdict forms nor contesting the legal correctness of the instructions or verdict forms. We further caution all interested parties that any notes on use or sources and authorities associated with the instructions or verdict forms reflect only the opinion of the Committee and are not necessarily indicative of the views of this Court as to their correctness or applicability. The instructions and verdict forms as set forth in the appendix shall become effective when this opinion becomes final.

It is so ordered.

APPENDIX

PER CURIAM.

CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.