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: Understanding New Jersey Instruction to Jury as to When Demand is not Necessary in Constituting Conversion Keywords: New Jersey, instruction to jury, demand, conversion, types Introduction: In the context of legal proceedings related to conversion in New Jersey, the role of the jury is vital in determining the outcome. However, there are instances when making a demand before pursuing a conversion claim is not necessary. This article aims to provide a detailed description of New Jersey's instruction to the jury regarding when demand is not necessary in constituting conversion. Additionally, it will explore different types or scenarios that may warrant exceptions to the demand requirement. I. Overview of Conversion and Demand Requirement in New Jersey: — Define conversion: Conversion refers to the wrongful act of depriving someone of their lawful possession or ownership rights over personal property. — Explain the demand requirement: Generally, in New Jersey, before bringing a conversion claim, it is necessary for the plaintiff to demand the return of the property from the defendant. II. Situations where Demand is Not Necessary in Constituting Conversion: 1. Conversion through destruction, alteration, or non-return of property: — Describe scenarios where the defendant's actions render the return of the property impossible or futile. — Explain how these acts bypass the demand requirement, as the harm caused by destruction or alteration negates the need for a demand. 2. Conversion resulting from disposal, sale, or conversion into a different form: — Illustrate situations where the defendant sells or disposes of the plaintiff's property, making a demand useless. — Discuss how conversion occurs when the property is transformed into another form or substituted, rendering a demand impractical. 3. Conversion cases involving willful misconduct, bad faith, or fraudulent acts: — Highlight instances where the defendant's intentions are clearly malicious, deceitful, or fraudulent. — Explain that in such cases, the demand requirement is waived, as the defendant's deliberate misconduct overrides the potential effectiveness of a demand. III. Exceptions to the Demand Requirement in Specific Circumstances: 1. Stolen property or goods obtained unlawfully: — Discuss situations where the plaintiff discovers that their property has been stolen or acquired unlawfully by the defendant. — Explain that in such instances, demand is unnecessary as the defendant's possession is already illegal, warranting an exception to the demand requirement. 2. Known unavailability or denial of possession by the defendant: — Explore instances where the defendant openly denies having possession of the property. — Explain that if the defendant has made it clear that they do not have the property, a demand is not required in constituting conversion. Conclusion: In New Jersey, the instruction to the jury regarding when demand is not necessary in constituting conversion extends to various circumstances. Understanding these exceptions is crucial for both plaintiffs and defendants involved in conversion claims. By grasping the instances where demand is not required, parties can better navigate the legal landscape, ensuring that justice is duly served.Title: Understanding New Jersey Instruction to Jury as to When Demand is not Necessary in Constituting Conversion Keywords: New Jersey, instruction to jury, demand, conversion, types Introduction: In the context of legal proceedings related to conversion in New Jersey, the role of the jury is vital in determining the outcome. However, there are instances when making a demand before pursuing a conversion claim is not necessary. This article aims to provide a detailed description of New Jersey's instruction to the jury regarding when demand is not necessary in constituting conversion. Additionally, it will explore different types or scenarios that may warrant exceptions to the demand requirement. I. Overview of Conversion and Demand Requirement in New Jersey: — Define conversion: Conversion refers to the wrongful act of depriving someone of their lawful possession or ownership rights over personal property. — Explain the demand requirement: Generally, in New Jersey, before bringing a conversion claim, it is necessary for the plaintiff to demand the return of the property from the defendant. II. Situations where Demand is Not Necessary in Constituting Conversion: 1. Conversion through destruction, alteration, or non-return of property: — Describe scenarios where the defendant's actions render the return of the property impossible or futile. — Explain how these acts bypass the demand requirement, as the harm caused by destruction or alteration negates the need for a demand. 2. Conversion resulting from disposal, sale, or conversion into a different form: — Illustrate situations where the defendant sells or disposes of the plaintiff's property, making a demand useless. — Discuss how conversion occurs when the property is transformed into another form or substituted, rendering a demand impractical. 3. Conversion cases involving willful misconduct, bad faith, or fraudulent acts: — Highlight instances where the defendant's intentions are clearly malicious, deceitful, or fraudulent. — Explain that in such cases, the demand requirement is waived, as the defendant's deliberate misconduct overrides the potential effectiveness of a demand. III. Exceptions to the Demand Requirement in Specific Circumstances: 1. Stolen property or goods obtained unlawfully: — Discuss situations where the plaintiff discovers that their property has been stolen or acquired unlawfully by the defendant. — Explain that in such instances, demand is unnecessary as the defendant's possession is already illegal, warranting an exception to the demand requirement. 2. Known unavailability or denial of possession by the defendant: — Explore instances where the defendant openly denies having possession of the property. — Explain that if the defendant has made it clear that they do not have the property, a demand is not required in constituting conversion. Conclusion: In New Jersey, the instruction to the jury regarding when demand is not necessary in constituting conversion extends to various circumstances. Understanding these exceptions is crucial for both plaintiffs and defendants involved in conversion claims. By grasping the instances where demand is not required, parties can better navigate the legal landscape, ensuring that justice is duly served.
