During a civil lawsuit for breach of contract, the plaintiff seeks to introduce evidence that the defendant has previously breached similar contracts in the past. The defense objects, arguing that this evidence is not highly probative of the defendant's actions in the current case. What must the court consider to determine the admissibility of this evidence?
Whether the plaintiff and defendant have a prior relationship.
Whether the past breaches affect the defendant’s actions in the current contract.
Whether the evidence is available.
Whether the defendant has acknowledged the past breaches.
The court must assess whether the evidence has sufficient probative value to support its relevance to the current case. Evidence of past breaches can demonstrate a pattern of behavior, making it relevant to the defendant's actions in the present dispute. The other options pertain to factors that do not directly address the evidence's ability to prove a relevant fact.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What does 'probative value' mean in the context of legal evidence?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Why might the defense argue against the admissibility of evidence from past breaches?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does the concept of relevance impact the admission of evidence in court?