In a breach of contract case, what should the court do about a defense alleging the plaintiff previously lost a similar claim?

In a breach of contract case, when a defendant raises a defense alleging that the plaintiff previously lost a similar claim, the court should move to strike this defense as irrelevant. This is because the outcome of earlier similar claims does not inherently affect the merits of the current case. Each case is assessed on its own facts, and simply losing a previous case does not provide sufficient grounds to invalidate the plaintiff's current claim.

The relevance of past cases is limited to demonstrating patterns or establishing a legal principle; however, a prior loss alone does not negate the validity of the current claims or provide a legal defense against them. Therefore, it's appropriate for the court to strike this defense to maintain focus on the specific issues at hand in the current case without unnecessary distractions. This aligns with procedural principles ensuring that defenses presented in court must be material and pertinent to the current facts of the case.