Legal Definitions - issuable defense

An issuable defense refers to a legal argument or set of facts presented by a defendant that is relevant, legitimate, and significant enough to be considered and decided upon by a judge or jury. It is a defense that raises a genuine question of fact or law that needs to be resolved through the legal process, rather than being dismissed as irrelevant or without merit. Essentially, it is a defense that puts a real "issue" into the case for the court to determine.

Here are some examples to illustrate this concept:

• Contract Dispute: Imagine a small business owner is sued for breach of contract because they failed to deliver a custom order of furniture on time. The owner presents a defense arguing that the delay was caused by an unexpected, severe regional power outage that lasted for weeks, making production impossible, and that their contract included a "force majeure" clause excusing performance under such circumstances. This is an issuable defense because it directly addresses the claim of breach and raises factual questions (was there a power outage? did it prevent production?) and legal questions (does the force majeure clause apply to this situation?) that a court must consider and rule upon.

• Criminal Case (Self-Defense): Consider a person charged with assault after a physical altercation. The defendant claims they acted in self-defense, stating that the other person initiated the attack and they only used reasonable force to protect themselves from imminent harm. This is an issuable defense because it directly challenges a key element of the assault charge (that the force used was unlawful). It presents factual questions (who started the fight? what was the perceived threat? was the force used proportionate?) that a jury must evaluate to determine the defendant's guilt or innocence.

• Personal Injury Claim (Comparative Negligence): Suppose a cyclist sues a car driver for injuries sustained after being hit by the car. The driver's defense is that the cyclist was riding without lights at night and swerved unexpectedly into their lane, thereby contributing to the collision. This is an issuable defense (specifically, comparative negligence) because it doesn't necessarily deny the driver's involvement but introduces the cyclist's own actions as a factor. It raises factual questions (was the cyclist visible? did they swerve?) that, if proven, could reduce or eliminate the driver's liability, requiring the court or jury to apportion fault between the parties.