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: Maine Instruction to Jury: When Demand is not Necessary in Constituting Conversion Keywords: Maine law, conversion, demand requirement, instruction to jury, types of instructions Introduction: Under Maine law, the concept of conversion involves the wrongful exercise of control or ownership over another person's property without their consent. Normally, in a conversion claim, the injured party must demonstrate that they made a demand for the return of their property before initiating legal action. However, there are specific circumstances in which a demand is not necessary. This article will provide a detailed description of when demand is not required in constituting conversion and outline the different types of Maine instruction to jury in such cases. 1. Lack of Specificity in the Demand: When a defendant's possession over the property is so unequivocally and antagonistically exercised that a demand would be futile, Maine law recognizes that making a formal demand is not necessary. In these cases, an instruction to the jury should explain that the injured party need not have made a specific demand due to the defendant's blatant refusal to relinquish control over the property. 2. Denial of Ownership or Rightful Possession: If the defendant denies the plaintiff's ownership or rightful possession of the property outright, the injured party is not required to make a demand before initiating a conversion claim. In this context, a Maine instruction to the jury should highlight that a demand would be pointless when the defendant refuses to acknowledge the plaintiff's ownership or possession rights. 3. Repudiation of Ownership or Failure to Respond: Another scenario in which demand is not necessary involves situations where the defendant expressly repudiates ownership rights of the plaintiff's property, or if they fail to respond to the plaintiff's demand within a reasonable time frame. In these cases, the instruction to the Maine jury should clarify that a demand is not required as the defendant has either disclaimed or ignored the plaintiff's property rights. 4. Unauthorized Transactions or Disposals: When the defendant improperly transfers, sells, or disposes of the plaintiff's property without their consent, a demand is not necessary. In instances where the defendant's actions clearly constitute unauthorized transactions or disposals, a Maine instruction to the jury should instruct that no demand was required due to the defendant's blatant violation of the plaintiff's property rights. Conclusion: In conclusion, under Maine law, there are specific circumstances in which a plaintiff does not need to make a demand for the return of their property before initiating a conversion claim. These include cases where the defendant's possession is unequivocal and antagonistic, denial of ownership, repudiation of ownership or failure to respond, and unauthorized transactions or disposals. When these situations arise, the Maine instruction to the jury should clearly convey that a demand was not necessary due to the defendant's actions or omissions.
