For the first time ever, the Oregon Supreme Court has set out the elements of a breach of contract claim.

I’m not being hyperbolic. Until a few weeks ago, the Oregon Supreme Court has never listed the elements of a breach of contract claim. This changed in Huskey v. Oregon Department of Corrections. Going forward, we now know that, to plead a breach of contract claim, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) its relevant terms; (3) a breach by the defendant that resulted in; (4) damages to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff in Huskey brought suit for breach of contract against the Oregon Department of Corrections for lost future employment income. This was met with a motion to dismiss for failure to plead an enforceable right to that future employment income, based on a provision of the Oregon Constitution which says that no inmate has a legally enforceable right to a job. The question before the court, then, was whether this constitutional provision barred the plaintiff’s contract claim as a matter of law.

Writing for the court, Justice James stated the four elements above as the definitive breach of contract elements. At the Multnomah Bar Association’s 2025 Appellate Update CLE, Justice James confirmed that the Oregon Supreme Court had never before laid out these elements. If you find this shocking, you’re not alone. Justice James also said he was surprised to find that these elements had only ever been recited by the Oregon Court of Appeals.

For any attorney who has litigated a breach of contract claim in Oregon, you might understand how frustrating this was. The opinions at the Oregon Court of Appeals have recited differing standards, making it unclear which one governed. In particular, some cases said that a plaintiff needed to plead full performance in order to plead a prima facie contract claim. In Huskey, though, the Oregon Supreme Court omitted any reference to full performance.

On the merits of Huskey, the Oregon Supreme Court held that the lack of a right to future employment is not necessarily fatal to a claim alleging economic damages based on future earnings. In so holding, the court relied on its past cases holding that an at-will employment position does not preclude damages relating to that job loss as a matter of law. These are not pleading issues, but matters of proof and causation.