Pat sued Vince for breach of contract. Pat testified that Vince had agreed to work as a salesman for a 10 percent commission. Vince testified that the commission was to be 15 percent. There were no witnesses to the conversation that created the oral contract. Assume that the case is tried before a jury. a. Which party has the burden of producing evidence as to the terms of the contract?
b. Which party has the burden of pursuasion?
c. What standard of proof is required? Explain
d. Is it possible for the jury to find for Pat without any corroborating evidence? Explain

Question: "Which party has the burden of producing evidence as to the terms of the contract?"

A) The initial Burden of producing Proof of the agreement which states that Vince had agreed to a 10% commission falls on the Plaintiff which in this case is Pat.

This position is based on the Latin maxim Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit which means "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges"

A Plaintiff is a person (corporate or individual) who brings a legal case against another person (corporate or individual) in the court of Law. The other party who is being sued is called the defendant.

After the Plaintiff has provided evidence or proof of the agreement, to establish the fact regarding the case, the burden shifts to the defendant.  

Question: "Which party has the burden of persuasion?"          

B)  Until the case is discharged, the burden of persuasion will rest solely on the Plaintiff (Pat). The Plaintiff will only succeed in its claim when they are satisfied with the persuasion of the plaintiff.  

Once the burden of persuasion has been completely discharged as required by the trier(s) of fact, then, the party carrying the burden of persuasion will have won the case.

Question: "What standard of proof is required?"  

C)    Given that the case here is one regarding a dispute over the terms of a contract, the standard of proof, therefore, is the balance of probabilities. This is also used in civil claims.

Question: "Is it possible for the jury to find for Pat without any corroborating evidence?"  

D) For Pat to win this case, he would need to provide evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that he and Vince had entered into a Sales Contract and that the term of the contract was a 10% commission to Vince, and that Vince agreed to it.

Cheers!

answer: the answer is d

explanation: the answer is d because if motorcycles are always in your blind spot and you don't see them this can result into an unwanted collision and result in serious injury or death. therefore this is not a safe skill you can use regarding motorcycles.

cardi b

explanation:

she got songs with the migos, and more than nicki.