Ofthe Northe rnDis t ri c tofI l l i noi s , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on. † 

## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 2406 S UPERL S EQU OI A L IMI TED , Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. T HE C ARLS ON C OMPAN Y, I NC ., D efend a nt-A pp ellee
.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 07 -cv-640 -bb c

—Barb ara B. C rab b , Ju dge .
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 11, 2010

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 11, 2010

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e f Judg e, K ANN E , Circui t Judg e, a nd K ENNELL Y, D i s t r i ctJudg e . † E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e

f Judg e . Du r i ng the fi r s t ha l fo f 2007, M acy’ s, Inc. , pl anned f oran ex tensi ve prom oti on of go ods under the M ar tha S tewart l abel

. ( A t the ti m e, Ma c y ’ s wa s k no wna s F e d e r a t e d D e p a r t me n tS t o r e s ; we u s e its cu rrent co rp orate n am e.) Th e d ep artm en t-store2 N o. 09

- 2406 chai n i nvi ted bi ds f ore q uipm ent a nd se rv i ces needed to turn por ti ons of 226 sto re s into set ti ngs forthe prom oti on. Carl son Co m p any, a furni ture m anufa cture r base d i n Madi so n, W i sc o ns i n, pr o po se d t o s upp ly 4, 00 0 “fi xture s” f or t h i s proj ect. W e put the word i n quotat i on m ar ks b ecause the beds, ar m oi re s, tabl es, and other i tem s that M acy’ s wanted are not“fi xtures ” as the l aw ofr ealpro p er ty uses that ter m . They a re pi eces o f fu rn itu re rat h er t h a n d oo rs , sw im m in g p oo ls, or d u ra b le goo ds expected t o re m ai n i n pla ce foryear s t o com e. W e ca l lthe i tem s furni ture r atherthan fi xtures
. Car l so n di d no t ha ve the c apa ci tyt o m ake a l lo fthe furni ture i n ti m e forM acy’ s dead lin e. Befo re pl aci ng a bi d, i t a ske d SuperlS equoi a Li m i te d , a m anufa cture r base d i n H ong K ong, wh etherit c oul d m eetm osto f M a c y ’ s r e qu i r e men t s . S up e r lS e qu o i a sai d tha ti tc o ul d, and that i t would par ti ci pate i fCarl son w as w i l l i ng to spl i t a ny pro fi ts 50/50. Carl son ag re ed

. I ts ro l e would be to insta l lthe fur ni tu r e so tha t th e di spl ay s m etM ac y ’s speci fi cati ons, a n d t o fi x orr epl ace any furni ture that ar riv ed i n substa nd ar d condit i on ( or, worse , di d not ar ri ve at al l )
. In Feb ruary 20 07 SuperlS equoi a g ave Car l so n a qu o te o fa ppr o xi m at ely $ 3. 4 m i l l i o n, i nc l udi ng shi pp i ng, f orthe i tem s M acy’ s wanted. Carl son accepte d th e qu ote , a p p li ed a m arku p of 22% ( on w hich Sup erl S equo ia a nd Ca r l so n h ad ag r ee d) t o tha t quo te pl us C ar lso n ’s e st im at e o f its ow n co st s , a n d bid ap p ro x im ate l y $ 5 m i l l i on t o M acy’ s, wh i ch acce pted on M ar ch 1, 2007
. T he disp lays w er e i n stalled on tim e (J uly 16, 2007). M ac y’s w as sa tis fied w ith th e ir qu alit y a n d p aidN o. 09

- 2406 3 C arlson’s invoice. B ut t h e p roj ect req uired m ore w ork th an Ca rlson ha d exp ecte d

. So m e of th e furnitu re ar ri ved fro m Chin a lat e ornotatal l ; Carl son had to m ake or bu y repla c e m en ts. Som e of th e furnitu re w as d am aged i n tran s it, and som e d id n ot m eet M acy’s speci fi cati ons. A gain Carl son had to m anufa c tu re r epla c em ents orfi x the dam age . S up er lS equoi a co ncedes that som e o fthe 4, 000 i tem s need ed t o be fi xed or re pla ced, tho ugh i t thi nks that Car l son did notneed t o spe nd as mu c h a s i td i d o n r e p l a c e me n t s o r fi x a s ma ny p iec es as it d id . C ar lso n ev en tu ally p aid Su p er l Seq u oia about $2 m illion, as o pp ose d to $3. 4 m i l l i on pl us 50 % of any profi ts. Superl Se quoi a sued f or the b ala n ce un de r the inte r na t i o na l

- di v e r s i t y j ur i s di c t i o n. 2 8 U. S
. C. §133 2( a) (2). Carl son i s a W i sco nsi n cor pora ti on with its princip al place of busine ss in W is con sin. Sup erl Se quoi a i s a H ong K on g b usi ness or gani zati on “ l i m i ted bys ha r es , ” a st atus i n the Comm o nwea l tho fNat i o ns th atwe ha ve he l d i s equi va l en t to a c o r p oration i n the U ni ted S tat es. S ee Le arCorp. v. Johns on Ele ct r i c Hol di ngs Ltd
. , 353 F.3d 580 , 582–8 3 (7th C ir. 2003). T h e d ist ric t c ou rtco n c l u d ed th at Su p er l Seq u oia bre ached i ts contr act by furni shi ng so m e defecti ve go od s a n d n otd eliv er i n g o t h er s a n d th at C ar lso n co u ld charg e a gainst the j oi nt ve nture the c ost s o fr epl aci ng o r re pai ring the i tem s. S uper lS equoi a does notco ntest these co ncl usi ons. Because the par ti es coul d not a gr ee on h ow m an y i tem s w ere d efective, or w ha t C a r ls o n’s reason able cos t s w ere, th e cou rt held a benc h trial. Be fore trial, how ever, the ju d ge con clud ed that Sup erl Seq uo ia’s $3.4 m il li on q uo te m us t be d isregard ed . O n ly its out-of-4 N o. 09

- 2406 po ck etc o st s co ul d b e ch ar g ed t o the j o i ntv en tu r e, the j ud ge he l d. T he $ 3
. 4 mi l l i o n b i d inc l ud e d a ma r k up , w hi ch m ust be re m ove d. 2008 U
. S. Dist. L E XIS56 167 (W
. D
. W is. J uly 23, 2008). A t t h e t ria l, b ot h sid es p ro vi d ed ev id en c e o f th eir ac tu alc o st s o f per f o r m an ce ( m an uf ac tu r i ng an d s hi ppi ng o n S upe r lS equo i a’ s si de; de l i ve ri nga nd a ss embl i ng the di spl ays o n Carl son’ s)
. The j ud ge then use d these costs to det e r m in e h ow m uc h p rofi t the j oint ven tu re ha d m ad e and di v id e d that profit 50/50 betw een Sup erl Seq uo ia and Ca rlson. T he j ud ge con clud ed that Sup erl Se quoi a’ s char geabl e co sts were $2. 2 m i l l i on, that Carl son’ s char geabl e co sts were $ 40 0, 000, and that each s i d e i s e n t i t l e d t o $ 1
. 1 5 mi l l i o n a s i t s s ha r e o fp r o fi t s . ( We disr ega rd so m e o thersum s that the j ud ge ded u c ted fro m the $ 5 m i l l ion .) T he j ud ge then co ncl ud ed that Carl son i s ent i t l e d t o ab o ut$ 1
. 1 6 mi l l i o n t o c o v e r the e xp e nse ofr epai ring o r re pla ci ng furni ture
. S i nce Car l son had al re ady pai d SuperlS equoi a about $2 m i l l i on, the bot

tom l ine w as a ne t j ud gm en t of $9,55 0 in Ca rlson’s f avor. 20 09 U .S. D ist . L EXIS37492 ( W
. D
. W is. M ay 1, 2009 ). SuperlS equoi a t ake s i ssue w ith m any o fthes e ca l cul ations, b uti ts a r g um en ts c an ’ t g etpa stthe s ta nd ard of app ell ate review : a d istrict j ud ge’s find ings after a bench tr i alm ay be upseto nl y i fclear ly er ro neous. S ee Fed

. R . C iv . P
. 52(a)( 6); And erson v. Bess em erCity, 470 U
. S. 56 4 ( 1 9 8 5 )
. Th e j ud g e di d no t c o mm i t a ny c l e a r er ro r i n to ti ng up cos ts. M any o fthe decisi ons ar e debat abl e, but i t i s the t rie r off act, r atherthan an appel l ate co urt, that re sol ves debatabl e f actuali ssues . Costs o fm anufa c-N o. 09

- 2406 5 tu r i nga r e no to r i o us l y har d t o c al cul at e, b ec au se many of a b u sin es s’s c os ts ar e fixe d in th e sh or t ru n . T o o ls an d m ac hi ne s ca n b e us ed f o r m an y proj ec ts , a nd the a l l o c a t i o n o fthe s e e xp e ns e s t o any o ne p r oj e c tde pe nd s on t he el ast i ci ty ofdem and fo r the di ffer ent o utputs, w hi ch can b e h ard to deter m i ne. I t i s e nough to sa y that th e di st r i ctj udg e’ s ha ndl i ngo fth e d i spu te s ab o utthe am ount a nd al l oca ti on o fc os ts i s thoughtful and rea

sonab l e. By co nt r as t, ap pel l at e r ev i ew o fl eg ali ss ue s, i nc l udi ng the m eani ng o f co ntra ctuall anguage thatneed notbe disa m bi guate d by par olev i dence, i s plen ary. S ee PSI Ene rgy, Inc. v. Exxon Coal U SA, Inc . , 17F. 3d 969, 97 1 ( 7th Ci r. 1 99 4). The dis tr i ct j ud ge m ade two l ega l deci si ons that had a sig ni fi cant e ffect on the cal cul ati ons. One, wh i ch w e hav e m enti oned al re ady, i s that SuperlS equoi a ca nnot tr eati ts quotati on a s the co st ofm aking and shipping the fur ni ture but i s l i m i ted to o uto f

- po c ketexp e ns e s , fr e e o fa nyma r k up f o r o v e r he a d, the c osto fcapi tal, o r a r ese rv e forr i sk. ( T h e j ud ge m ad e t h i s d e c isio n as a m at te r of law be for e t ria l; nei thersi de has s ugges ted that the j ud ge shoul d have ke p t t h e is su e o p en u n til tr ial a n d rec eiv ed ex tr in sic e v i d e n c e o n th e s u bj ec t. N eit h er sid e h ad an y t o p re se n t.) The seco nd deci si on i s that, wh en cal cul ating t he co st ofr epl acem ent a nd r epai r, Carl son i s e n tit led to a m ar k up t o r efl ec t o ve r he ad an d the c o sto fc api ta l

. The d istri ct cou rt treated Ca rlson’s cost of m akin g repa irs as the fee th at i t would char ge to str anger s for eq uivalen t w ork

— a pr i ce th ati nc l ude s o ve r he ad an d6 N o. 09

- 2406 p ro fit. U n su rp ris in gly , Su p er l S eq u oia se es th es e d ec isi on s a s i nc o ns i s t e nta nd c o nt e nd s tha to ne o r the o ther m ust be wrong. A c tu al l y, S up er lS equoi a co ntends that bo th a r e wro ng . Re co ve r y o fi ts o wn o ve r he ad an d re ser ve f or ri sk i s j usti fi ed, S up er lS equoi a insi sts , bec ause Carl son acc ep ted the $3

. 4 m i l l i on quote
. Carl son did not q u ot e re p air p ric es to Su p er l Seq u oia an d th e r e f o r e is l i m i te d t o o ut
- o f

- po ck eto ut l ay s unde r a c o st
- sh ar i ng ar ra ngem ent, the ar gum ent c oncl ud es. Eval uati ng the se ar gum ents i s co m pli cate d by the f act that t h e parti es oper ate d on the basi s o fem ai lexchange s, each o fwh i ch co n tains onl y a few pote nti alco ntra ctual te rm s , a n d d id n otm em or ializ e t h eir arr an ge m en t u n til M ay 7, 2007, afterM acy’ s had acc epted the $5 m i l l i on bi d and m uch ofthe furni ture w as on i ts w ay fro m Ch i na to the U ni ted S tates. S up er lS equoi a m ade i ts $3.4 m ill ion qu otation, w hich Ca rlson acc ep ted , m ore than two m onths ear l i er, and Super lS equoia sa ys that thi s be cam e a n i nvi ola te part ofthe parti es’ deal

. Carl son conte nd s, and the dist ri ct courtfound, that thi s quot ati on w as su p erse d e d by an em ailthat Ca rlson sen t to Sup erl Se quoi a o n M ay 7, an e m ai lto wh ich i t r epl i ed w i th general agree m ent a nd so m e e m endati ons on M ay 8. The j ud ge f ound that the M ay 8 em ai lm ust be i gnor ed because Carl son did notune q u ivoc al l y a gr ee

— though th i s reason in gmay ca l li nt o que st i o n the s ta tu s o fthe M a y 7 e mai l a s we l l, b e c a us e the M a y 8 e m ai l m ay am ount t o a co unterpr oposa lr atherthan an acc eptance plus a new proposa l fo r changes

. Thi s i s no t a subj ect w e nee d to run to groun d , how ever.N o. 09

- 2406 7 The fi rs t tw o parag ra ph s o fthe M ay 7 e m ai lse rv e a s th e fou nd ati on f orthe dist ri ct j ud ge’ s deci si on t o di sr eg ar d the $ 3. 4 m i l l i o n quo ta ti o n: 1
. T he o v e r r i di ngtheor y and a g r e e men ti s CC (Ca rlson C om p an y) an d SS ( Sup erl Seq uo ia) share quo te d c o st s ( not se llpr i ce , b utc o st s) o fmanuf actur i ng 50 /5 0 s o that i fther e i s a ny fi nanci al ri sk ofnon- paym ent, bo th CC and S S sh ar e that risk equ ally . B y “sh aring,” w e d efi ne CC pa ys 1/2 of S S’s m an ufac tu ring costs if SS i s the prim ary m an u fac tu re r, a n d v i c e v er sa if [C C ] is th e p rim ary m an ufac tu rer. 2. There ar e m any d iffer ent s cenar i os that can be add r e s s e d, b utn e i the r CC o r S S b e l i e v e i n an o ve r l y c o m pl i ca te d a g r ee m en t. The o ve r r i di ng p rin c ip le is t h at bo th C C an d SS sh ar e e q u ally in J OINT m anufa cturing co sts to date so w e a l w ays ha ve, w it h in reason, the sam e fina nc ialexp osu re f orco sts to d ate. Thi s e xcl ud es any o verhead ei therparty m i ght ha ve ori nd i re ct c ost s. W hen cal cul ating Carl son’ s co sts , the dist ri ct j ud ge di d no t m en ti o n the se p aragr aph s, whi chunde r cutthe dec i si o n t o pe r m i t Car l so n t o c ha r g e ag ainst t he j o i nt ventur e i ts “se l lpri ce” ofr epl acem ents and re pai rs . U nd er th ese p aragrap hs , only Ca rlson’s o ut -of-poc ket cost s are charg eabl e. The di str i ct j ud ge m ust r ecal cul ate the $1. 16 m i l l i on fi gure f orCarl son’ s r epai r and repl acem ent c ost s. T h at le av es th e s ta tu s o f th e $ 3.4 m illion qu ot e, w h ich is not as eas y t o re sol ve on the bas i s o fthe em ai l ’ s l anguage .8 N o. 09

- 2406 Pa ragrap h 1 sh ow s tha t, ifM acy’s d id not p ay, th en Sup erl S eq uo i a wo u l d g e t n o mo r e th a n $ 1
. 7 mi l l i o n ( h a l f o ft he m an u fac tu rin g co st s, to be p aid by C ar lso n ), an d w ou ld have to com pensate Carl son f orh al fo fCarl son’ s co sts
. Bu t M acy’ s di d pay. The questi on then beco m es w hether th e $3.4 m il li on sh ou ld be treated as Sup erl Seq uo ia’s cos ts, gi ven that bo th ¶1 and ¶2 ofthe em ail sa y that o v e r he a d a nd o the r i nd i r e c tc o s t s a r e e xc l ud e d. Car l s o n s e e s the a ns we r a s e a s y . T he quo t a ti on i n c l u d e d o v e r h e a d a n d a r e s e r v e f o r r i s k ; th e s e a r e i n c o mpa tibl e w i th the May7e mai la nd mus tb e r e mov e d. T h a twa s th e d i s t r i c tj u d g e ’ s vi e w t o o . B u tth e r e a r e t wo prob lem s. Fi rs t, Carl son had accepted the $3

. 4 m i l l i on quo t a t i o n mo r e th a n t wo mo n th s b e f o r e s e n d i n gt he M ay 7 e m ai l

. I t ca nnot r etr oac ti vely r ev oke an a cce pta nc e o n whi chS upe r lS equo i a r el i ed when j o i ni ng the b usi ness ventu re and m anufa cturing the furni ture , m ucho fwhi chwas a l r ea dy i n t r an si t when Car l so n s en t the M ay 7 e m ai l

. S eco nd , the quotati on ser ved two functio ns: as a fl oo r, and as a ce i l i ng. S up er lS equoi a had agreed that i f m an u fa ctu ring and ship p ing the furn iture tu rn ed ou t t o c os t m or e t h an $ 3 .4 m illion, i t w ou ld sw allo w the l oss r atherthan charg e the exce ss expenses to the j oi nt ve nture. Carl son enj oye d that pr i ce pr ote cti on but now w ants to tak e aw ay the com pen sa tio n that SuperlS equoi a was to r ecei ve f orpro vi ding i t. W e a ske d C ar l son’ s l aw yerato ra lar gum ent what w oul d have happened i fS up er lS equoi a’ s cos ts had ex c ee d ed $3 .4 m illion, pe r h a p s b ec au se it h ad to sh ip m or e fu rn itu re by air t h an it h ad an tic ip at ed . (W h ich itN o. 09

- 2406 9 d id. Sup erl Seq uo ia’s fi na l invoice to Ca rlson w as for a l i ttl e m or e than $3. 4 m i l l i on. ) Counsel re pli ed that all ex tr a c os ts w er e S u p er l Seq u oia ’s re sp on sib ility , th at it coul d not hav e cl ai m ed m or e than $3. 4 m illion fori ts r o l e i n th e v en tu re . Ye t t h at p os itio n is in c om p at ible w ith C arlson’s con ten tion th at t he M ay 7 em ailsup erseded the Februarypri ce quot ati on. Carl son can’ t hav e thi ngs b oth w ays . I fthe $3. 4 m i l l i on quota ti on s urvi ved as a c ap on t h e e x p en se s t h at Su p er l Seq u oia co u ld ch arge to the v en tu r e, i t al so s ur vi ve d a s a fl o o r . That’s the nat ur e o fa fi r m pr i c e quo t a t i o n. A c o s t
- pl us c o nt r a ct, w h ich is h ow th e d ist ric t jud ge u n d er s t o od th e d ea l, al l o ws v ar iation u p a s wel la s do wn. One c ani m ag i ne a d eal such as “w e w il l m ake 4 ,0 0 0 p ieces of furn iture i n exchange f oro ut- of

- pocketco sts pl us 50 % o fp ro fits, bu t ifour costs exc eed $x w e w il l bear t h e e x cess oursel ves. ” The pot enti alf orpro fi t m i gh t c om pensate f or the r i sk ofco st ove rr uns. But that i s no t th e nature of th e F eb ru ar y o f f e r, w h ich C ar lso n ac c ep te d , an d it is h ar d to u n d er st an d th e M ay 7e m a i l as ret ro ac tiv ely ch an gin g t he fun d am en tal econom ic struct ure of Sup erl Se quoi a’ s par ti ci pati on in the M ar tha S tewart proj ect. P ar ag ra p h s 3 an d 4 of th e M ay 7 em ail su p p or t t h is und er sta nd i ng. H er e they a re : 3. U sing t h e M ar tha S tewart proj ect as a guide, whe r e S S i s th e pr i mar y m a nu f a c t ur e r, S S an d [ CC] wi l la g r ee o n a manuf ac tu r i ngc o st, o r derqua ntity a nd shi pp i ng/producti on s chedule at the b eg i nni ngof the proj ec t. S S wi l lr eque sta s ta r t up deposi t a nd subse que n tl y invoi ce [ CC ] f or50 % o f10 N o. 09

- 2406 the ma nu f a c t ur i ngco st atthe t i me o fe a c h s hi pm en t, to be p aid w ithin 3 d ays by [w ire]
. 4. CC and SSwil lm utual l y t rusto ne ano therwith th e f actualacc uracyo f“dra w s” and orexpenses to d ate, but eithe r party m ay requ est satisfactory do cumenta ti o n fr o m the o th eri fr eque st ed, a nd d o so i n a t im e ly f ash ion, an d neith er CC or SS w i l li m plyor inf erany offense orm i str ust fro m the o therbythatr equest. W here ver/whenever possibl e, CC & S S w i l l have pre - agr eed m anufa ctu ring cost th at w il l d ictate p aym en t am ou nt (s). Para gr aph 3 i m p lies thatthe M ay 7 e m ai lpro vi des a fr amewor kf o r future ve ntur es b etwee n Ca r l so n a nd S up e r lS e qu o i a , r a the r tha n do c ume nt i ngthe t e r ms f or the M ar tha S tewart proj ect as a o ne- offd ea l. Thi s m ay ex pl ain why the e m ai lne ve r ment i o ns a ny t er m s o fthe M ar th a S te war t pr oj ec t. Pa r ag r aph3 a l so im p li es th atthe M arth a Stew art p roj ect’s con trac t is alread y set (otherw ise h ow coul d i t s er ve “as a guide”? ) , wh i ch w ould m ean that i t i s no t m odi fi ed by the M ay 7 e m ai l

. Par agr aphs 3 and 4 i nd i cate that, al though ¶2 r equi re s spl i tting o ut- of

- pocketco sts as a defa ultr ule , Carl son an d S u p er l S eq u oia w ill t ry to se t a “m an u fac tu rin g c os t . .
. at the b eginning” o fany proj ect and that “ pre- agr eed m an ufac tu ring cost .
. . w il l d ictate p aym en t am ou nt (s). ” So th e M ay7e m ai la ppr o ve s us i ngpr i ce quo te s, a nd the Februaryquote o f$3

. 4 m i l li on fi ts com f or tabl y a s a “pre

agr eed m anufa cturing co st” f orthi s purpose . Pa ragrap h 1 o f t h e M ay 7 em ailm ean s tha t Sup erl S equo i a woul d ha ve t o a cc eptl es s th an$ 3. 4 m i l l i o n, a ndN o. 09

- 2406 11

w ou ld h av e t o u n d er w rit e h alf ofC ar lso n ’s e x p en se s, if M acy’ s did not pay ( or did not pay enough)

. Bu t ¶ 2 is bestr ead as l i m ite d to the par ti ci pants’ i ncre m ental cos ts

— that i s, the expenses offurni ture a nd se rv i ces no t al r ea dy pr o vi ded f o r i n th e $3

. 4 m i l l i o n. T ha t readi ng avo i ds u n d er cutti ng S up er lS equoi a’ s l egi ti m ate r el i ance o n Ca r l so n’ s ac ce ptan ce o fthe $ 3. 4 m i l l i o n quo ta ti o n a nd av oid s t u rn in g a firm p ric e q u ot at ion int o a n as ym m et ric deal ( i n whi c h S up e r l S e qu o i a ha d pl a c e d a c a p on i ts e xp e ns e s , wi tho ut a fl o o r un de r the m)
. Th e e nt i r e t y o f the M ay 7 e m ai lsho w s t h at t h e parti es w er e t o be t re ate d al i ke; usi ng the $3

. 4 m i l l i on bi d as a cap but not a fl oo r w oul d vi ol at e that sym m etr y. J ud ges endeavo r to re ad contr acts to m ake eco nom i c se nse, se e Be ans t al k Gr oup, Inc . v. AM G enera l C o rp . , 283 F.3d 856, 860 (7th Cir. 2002); G o ttsa ck er v. M o nn ier, 281 W i s. 2d 361, 375, 69 7 N .W
. 2d 43 6, 44 2 (2 00 5 ) , an d it w ou ld u n d er m in e t h e e c on om ic st r uctur e an d func ti o n o fthis tran sa ct i o n t o t r ea t th e $3. 4 m i l l i on a s a cap o n SuperlS equoi a’ s e xpenses, w hile dep rivi ng i t of an y fl oor. The j udg m en t o fthe di st r i ctc o ur t i s va ca te d, a nd the ca se i s r emande d wi thi ns truct i ons to r ec al cul at e th e ne t j udg m en t co ns i st en tly wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

8- 11- 10