A jury instruction is the judge's oral explanation of the law governing a case. Jury instructions are given after the attorneys have presented all the evidence and have made final arguments, but before the jury begins deliberations. Improper explanations of the law to be applied in jury instructions are often the basis for later appeals. Proof of demand and refusal is not essential to the maintenance of an action for conversion when the conversion is otherwise established.
Title: Oregon Instruction to Jury as to When Demand is not Necessary in Constituting Conversion Introduction: In the state of Oregon, legal instructions are provided to juries to ensure fair and just decisions. Specifically, certain instructions discuss situations in which a demand is not necessary to establish a case of conversion. This article aims to provide a detailed description of Oregon instructions to the jury regarding when a demand is not required in constituting conversion. We will explore possible types of these instructions, outlining their relevance and key keywords associated with this topic. 1. Oregon Instruction 6.01 — Conversion and Demand: One of the primary instructions dealing with conversion is Oregon Instruction 6.01, which explains the basic elements required to prove conversion. However, it also clarifies scenarios in which a prior demand is not necessary for the plaintiff to bring a successful claim. 2. Oregon Instruction 6.02 — Conversion Without Demand in Specific Cases: This instruction provides a more specific understanding of the types of cases where a demand is not necessary to establish conversion. It lists various situations such as wrongful acquisition, wrongful refusal to surrender property, destruction or alteration of goods, or any other circumstance where it is clear that a reasonable demand would be futile or unnecessary. 3. Oregon Instruction 6.03 — Spoliation of Evidence and Conversion: This instruction highlights the relationship between the spoliation of evidence and conversion. It explains that conversion may occur when a party knowingly destroys, alters, or withholds evidence relevant to ongoing litigation without a prior demand. This instruction underscores the importance of preserving evidence and penalizes parties engaging in spoliation. 4. Oregon Instruction 6.04 — Implied Demand in Conversion Cases: This instruction recognizes situations where a demand is implied rather than explicitly made by the plaintiff. It explains that under certain circumstances, the defendant's behavior or actions may be interpreted as an implied demand, removing the necessity for a formal demand. 5. Oregon Instruction 6.05 — Exceptions to Demand Requirement in Conversion Claims: This instruction outlines specific exceptions to the demand requirement in conversion claims. It addresses instances such as when a demand is impossible or where the conversion is ongoing and continuing. It emphasizes that in such cases, a demand is not needed to establish the defendant's liability. Conclusion: Oregon instructions to the jury regarding when a demand is not necessary in constituting conversion serve to ensure a fair examination of conversion claims in the state's legal system. These instructions encompass a range of scenarios in which a demand is unnecessary, such as wrongful acquisitions, destruction of property, spoliation of evidence, and implied demands. By understanding these instructions, juries can accurately assess conversion cases, promoting justice and fairness in Oregon's legal landscape.
