ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Kentucky Blogs -> Kentucky Cases

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Kentucky

: Kentucky Cases

Business law (horse-breeding contract); KRE 406 habit or routine evidence: Curry v. Bennett (COA 4/24/2009)

By Michael Stevens

ADVERTISEMENTS
Curry v. Bennett
2007-CA-002315
04/24/2009
2009 WL 1097959
Opinion by Judge Wine; Judges Dixon and Keller concurred.

The Court affirmed a judgment of the circuit court ordering appellant to specifically perform on a horse-breeding contract and awarding appellee damages for appellant?s breach of the contract. The Court first held that the trial court did not err by allowing evidence of customary practices in the American Saddlebred horse industry that a trainer acts as the agent for the horse owner. KRE 406 allows for evidence of habit or routine practice of an organization to prove the conduct of a person on a particular occasion was in conformity with the practice. The testimony at issue was relevant and admissible to show that appellee reasonably relied upon appellant?s trainer?s apparent authority to negotiate the agreement.

The Court next held that the trial court properly instructed the jury on the issue of agency and did not improperly shift the burden to appellant to prove that the trainer was not acting as his agent. First, the instruction substantially adopted the recommended instruction set out in prior caselaw. Moreover, since appellant admitted that he knew the trainer was negotiating with appellee, the only issue was whether appellee knew that the trainer lacked authority to negotiate.

The Court finally held that in order to show the diminished value of the colt, the trial court properly allowed testimony that had appellant not failed to provide the necessary paperwork for the colt, the colt would likely have won a weanling competition. The evidence was not unduly speculative in light of all of the evidence presented to establish the colt?s diminished value. Further, appellant had the opportunity to cross-examine all of the evidence.

Full post as published by Kentucky Cases on September 07, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.002 secs (from cache 11/03/26 12:30:57)