Appeals court reviews contested jury verdict and 'meeting of the minds' on alleged embezzlement
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
In Jacqueline Electric v. Tetrault, the appellant urged the court that no mutual-agreement existed over compensation and that the judge erred in post-trial rulings; counsel characterized the record as unrebutted and argued legal questions of mutual assent should be resolved by the court, while the panel noted jury credibility findings.
A long-running civil dispute over bookkeeping, alleged unauthorized withdrawals and contract terms drew pointed argument to the Appeals Court.
Counsel for Jacqueline Electric described evidence that a part-time bookkeeper took large sums without any mutual agreement on compensation terms and urged that the judge erred by entering post-trial rulings disallowing certain equitable counts. "There was never a meeting of the minds as to the amount of compensation," counsel said, pressing that mutual assent on essential terms was missing.
The panel questioned whether the question of a contract was one of law (for the court) or fact (for the jury) when evidence is contested. The trial judge had instructed the jury on mutual agreement and left the fact-determination to them; appellate counsel argued existing precedent treats mutual assent as a legal question in some circumstances.
The argument also covered conversion and money-had-and-received counts and whether the judge’s post-trial ruling was legally correct. Counsel asked the court to review the judge’s characterization of the evidence and the legal framing of claims.
The panel took the matter under advisement after questioning involving jury instructions, conflicting testimony, and the legal standard for meeting of the minds.