FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APR 21, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nos . 10 -1 12 09 ; 1 0- 11 25 1

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 8- cv -2 16 82 -J LK VALIDSA, INC., a Fl or id a co rp or at io n, d.b .a. Dext on Vali ds a, d.b .a. Dext on , S.A., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Co un te r Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee-C ro ss App el la nt , vers us PDVSA SERVICES, INC ., a Del aware co rp or at io n, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t-C ro ss -Ap pe ll ee, BARIVEN S.A., a Ven ezu el anbu si ne ss en ti ty, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt -Co un te r Cl ai m an t-Ap pe ll an t-C ro ss -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 21 , 20 11 )Befo re BARKETT an d HULL, Cir cu itJu dg es , andSCHLESINGER, Dis tri ct * Ju dg e. PER CURI AM: Inth is cas e in vo lv in g c on tra ct s fo r th e sa le of f oo ds tu ffs , def

en da nt sap pe ll an ts PDVSA Serv ic es , Inc . (“ PSI” ) an d B ari ve n, In c. (“ Bari ve n” ) ap pe al th e di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t t o p la in ti ff-app el le e Val id sa , Inc . (“ Vali ds a”), o n Val id sa ’s Am en de d C om pl ai ntall eg in g fi ve bre ach of c on tra ct cl ai m s. PSI ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s s umm ary jud gm en t ru li ng th atitwas in di vi du al ly liab le forth e b reac he s d es pi te be in g t he ag en t o f di sc lo se d p rin ci pa l Bari ve n. Ba riv enap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f Val id sa ’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t o n a ll of B ari ve n’s co un te rcl ai m s ag ai ns t Val id saan d d en ia l o f Bari ve n’s m ot io n fo r pa rti al su m m ary jud gm en t o n c ert ai n c ou nt ercl ai m s. Bo th PSI an d B ari ve n app eal th e ex cl us io n o f th e ex pe rt t es ti m on y of Dr. M ig ue l Her ce fro m th e b en ch tri al on da m ag es . Vali ds a cro ss -ap pe al s s ev eral rul in gs by the di stric t co urt: (1) it s ex cl us io n of ev id en ce o f co ns eque nt ia l d am ag es on co nt ract75 7, al le ge dl y bre ach edby PSI an d B ari ve n; (2) it s d eci si onth atPSI an d B ari ve n wer e en ti tl edto anoff se t o r reco up m en t o f cas h a dv an ces th ey m ad e to Vali ds a; an d (3 ) it s ru li ng th atVali ds a
Honora ble Har vey E. Schlesing er, United States District Court J udg e for the Middle * District of F lorida, sitting by designation. 2was no t en ti tl edto pre jud gm en t i nt eres t o n t hr ee o f th e co nt ract s al le ge dl y br each edby PSI andBari ve n. Afte r rev ie w of t he reco rd , andwith t he be ne fitof o ral arg um en t, we af firm in pa rt, re ve rs e in pa rt, a ndrem an d c ert ai n c la im s fo r tr ia l.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Par tie s a nd Co ntra cts Pla in ti ff-app el le e Val id sa , Inc . (“ Vali ds a”) i s a F lo rid a co rp or at io n t ha t op erat es as a n i nt ern at io na l fo odco m m od it ie s trad er. Defen dant -ap pe ll an t Bari ve n i s a wh ol ly-own edsubs id ia ry of P etró le os de Vene zu el a, S.A. (“ PDVSA”), Ven ezu el a’s na ti on al oi l co m pa ny. Defen da nt -ap pe ll an t PS I is a Dela ware co rp or at io n t ha t i s a wh ol ly-own edsubs id ia ry of B ari ve n, an d a ct s as Bari ve n’s p ur ch as in g a ge nt . 1 Inres po ns e to Vene zu el a’s fo odsh orta ge , inNov em be r 20 07 PDVSA ta sk edBari ve n wi th pu rch as in g l arg e am ou nt s o f fo od stuf fs on th e in te rn at io na l
m ark et . Bari ve n, i n turn, h adPSI p erfo rm m an y of t he subs id ia ry

tas ks requi redin acqui rin g t ho se lar ge am ou nt s o f fo od . As pa rt o f th is pro ces s, PS I acc ep te d b id s fo r de li ve ry

of c ert ai n fo od stuf

fs . Vali ds a subm it te d t he lo wes t b id s fo r se ve ral of
PSIis a wholly -owne d subsidiary of B arive n, which is in turn an ag ency and 1 instrumentality

of the B olivarian Republic of Vene zuela and is itself a wholly-owne d subsidiary of PDVSA. 3th e p ur ch as es , andPSI, o n b eh al f of Bari ve n, the n s ub m it te d p ur ch as e o rd ers to Vali ds a; th os e p ur ch as e o rd ers be cam e th e b as is forth e co nt ract s atis su e h ere. InNov em

be r 20 07 , PSI an d B ari ve n a ward edeig htco nt ract s wo rth a to ta l of rou gh ly $66 m il li on to Vali ds a. Thre e o f th os e Nov em be r co ntract s, No s. 3 26 , fo r be ef; 36 8, fo r ch ic ke n; an d 4 05 , forbe ef, were at i ss ue in th e d is tri ctco urt. Lik e al l o f th e co ntract s, the se Nov em be r 20 07 co nt ract s i de nt ifi edth e p ur ch as in g pa rty as: BARIVEN, S.A. c/ o P DVSA Serv ic es , Inc . Pu rch as in g Ag en t (B U00 ) 12 93 Eldrid ge Parkway Hou st on , Texa s 7 70 77 Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca Each of t he co nt ract s al so di rect edVali ds a to sen d i nv oi ces to “ BARIVEN, S.A. c/ o P DVSA Serv ic es , Inc .” Vali ds a subm it te d i ts in vo ic es to “ BARIVEN, S.A. c/o PDVSA Serv ic es , Inc .” Subs eque nt ly, in Marc h 2 00 8, PS I an d B ari ve n a ward edVali ds a two m or e co nt ract s: No. 6 32 , whi ch cal le d fo r th e d el iv ery of 10 0,0 00 m etric to ns of s ug ar at $4 46 .92 pe r to n, fo r a t ot al pri ce o f $4 4,6 92 ,00 0, o f whi ch30 % ($1 3,4 07 ,60 0) was pa idin adva nc e b y

Bari ve n; an d No . 75 7, wh ic h c al le d fo r th e d el iv ery of 24 ,00 0
m etric to ns of b eef a t $ 4,3 29 .58 pe r to n, fo r a t ot al pri ce o f $1 03 ,92 9,9 20 , of

4whi ch30 % ($3 1,1 72 ,97 6) Bari ve n a ls o p ai d i n a dv an ce. Thu s, b etweenth es e two

Mar ch20 08 co nt ract s, PS I an d B ari ve n m ad e ap pr ox im at el y $4 4.5 80 m il li on in adva nc es to Vali ds a o n t ot al pu rch as es of n earl y $1 50 m il li on . Vali ds a was ob li ga te d t o h av e in su ran ce co m pa ni es is su e p erfo rm an ce b on ds in fav orof P SI t o se cu re the adva nc e p aym en ts in th e ev en t t ha t Val id sabre ach edco ntract63 2 o r 75 7. Un de r th e co nt ract s, the 30 % adva nc es were t o b e drawndo wn o ve r ti m e. Due to th e si ze o f th e Ma rch 20 08 co ntract s (6 32 an d 7 57 ), th e g oo ds co nt em pl at edby the co ntract s wer e to be de li ve redinin st al lm en ts , andBari ve n was to pa y

70 % of t he pri ce o f th e in st al lm en t wi th in a cert ai n p eri odaft er ea ch de li ve ry . The ad va nc es , th eref or e, co ns ti tu te d t he ot he r 30 % of t he pa ym en t fo r each in st al lm en t. Thu s, the adva nc es wou ldno t b e fu ll y dra wn d ownun ti l t he las t in st al lm en t was de li ve redan d p ai d fo r. Inge ne ral , Vali ds a an d o th er s up pl ie rs wou ldpro vi de PSI wi thde li ve ry sch edul es kn own as “ cro no gr am as ,” in di cat in g whe n andho w futur e d el iv eri es wou ldtak e p la ce. The de li ve ry sch edul es wou ld oc cas io na ll y

ch an ge ov er t im e fo r rea so ns su chas v es se l av ai labi li ty, co nt ai ne r av ai labi li ty, cap aci ty at po rts of c al l, p ro du ct io n c ap aci ty, an d i ns pe ct io ns . To co m pl y with i ts ob li ga ti on s u nd er the se co nt ract s, Val id saen te redin to rel at io ns hi ps with t wo s up pl ie rs . It ag reedto pa y Paci fic Atl an ti c Trad in g

5Co m

pa ny $2 9,5 00 ,00 0 fo r th e p ur ch as e o f 10 0,0 00 m etric to ns of s ug ar, an d t o pa y Quat ro Marc os Ltd . $8 7,6 00 ,00 0 fo r 24 ,00 0 m etric to ns of b eef. B. Gro unds for Ins ecur ity 1. Al le ge d Ki ckba ckDem an d Acco rd in g t o Val id sa , inMarc h 2 00 8, Val id sa ’s pri nc ip al s To m as Gon zal ez (“ Gon zal ez”) an d P ab lo Card en as (“ Card en as ”) were ap pr oa ch edby a Venez ue la n bu si ne ss m an , Ju anCarl os Ch ou rio (“ Ch ou rio ”), wh o d em an de d a$2 m il li on ki ckba ckth athe cla im edwas re qu es te d b y Geor ge s Kab bo ul (“ Kab bo ul ”), pr es id en t o f Bar iv enan d P SI, to ke ep th e co nt ract s i n p la ce. Val id saass ert s t ha t Ch ou rio ha s a f

am il y co nn ect io n wi th Bari ve n’s t hi rd -h ig he st -ran ki ng off ic er, wh o Vali ds a cl ai m s i s a c lo se co nf id an t o f Kab bo ul ’s. Bari ve n a ndPSI d is pu te so m e o f th es e fac ts , as wel l as th e im po rt o f th e p ur

po rte d k ic kb ackde m an d. Kab bo ul , for in st an ce, s ta te d t ha t h e h adne ve r m etCh ou rio an d b ecame aware o f hi m on ly du rin g t hi s l it ig at io n. Ad di ti on al ly, PSI an d B ari ve n p oi ntou t wh atth ey say are in co ns is te nc ie s i n Val id sa ’s pri nc ip al s’ dep os it io n t es ti m on ie s ab ou t t he ki ckba ck de m an d. Fi na ll y , PSI an d B ari ve n d is pu te th atth ere i s an y si gn ifi can ce t o t he fam il ia l re la ti on sh ip be twee n C ho ur io an d t he Bari ve n e m pl oyee, st at in g t ha t i t i s anatt enua te d re la ti on sh ip to anem pl oyee who ha s n otbe ende m on st rat edto be in vo lv edinfoo d p ro cu rem en t. 62. Ri va s E-m ai l Re cei ve d Ap ril 15

On Ap ril 15 , 20 08 , Vali ds a rec ei ve d a n e -m ai l s tri ng fro m Pao lo Riv as (“ Ri va s e- m ai l” ), a PSI e m pl oyee. Thi s s tri ng in cl ud edanApri l 8 , 20 08 e-m ai l fro m Rafa el Ro sa le s (“ Ro sa le s” ), anin -h ou se att orne y forBari ve n. Th e e-m ai l was in te nd edas a n i nt ern al co m m un ic at io n t o e m

pl oyees o f PSI andBari ve n, an d was sen t i na dv ert en tl y

to Vali ds a. The e -m ai l was en ti tl ed“ Dex to n[ ]-Sus pe ns io n 2 of PSO Mea t-De m an d fo r Del iv ery of Ch ic ke n” an d re adin pa rt a s: On th e in st ru ct io ns of Mr. Geo rg es Kab bo ul –e ffec ti ve imm ed ia t e ly–y ou are in st ru ct ed to can c e l [ P u r c ha se Ord er] 75 7. Lik ewis e, we reque st th e cu rren t si tu at io n of th e de la y of ch ic ke ns al so pu rch as ed fro m th is co m pany, in an y cas e y ou are in st ru ct ed to su sp en d an y pa ym en t if th ere is an y . On th e pa rt of ou r Law Offi ce, we reque st th e do cu m en ta ti on th at sh ows th e pr ob le m s ab ou t th e fai lu re t o d el iv er ch ic ke ns .[ ] 3 The strin g a ls o i nc lu de d asec on d m es sa ge th atread : Per M r. Geo rg es Kabb ou l’s i ns tru ct io ns , pl eas e p ro ceedto can cel Pu rch as e Ord er No . 51 00 06 17 57 [Co nt ract75 7] for 24 00 [si c] MT of b eef p la ced wit h Em pr es a [Co m

pany] Dext on . . . Lik ewis e, itis in stru ct edth atan y pe nd in g p aym en t t o s ai d c om pany be s us pe nd ed . As o f Apr il 15 , 20 08 , th e d at e Val id sarece iv edth e e-m ai l co nt ai ni ng th es e m es sa ge s, Val id saha d n otde li ve redan y be ef u nd er co nt ract75 7 o r an y su ga r

Dexton is a name that Validsa used in some of its business dealings. 2 The orig inal e-ma il was in Spanish, and the par ties use slightly

differ ent ver sions. The 3 defe ndants-appe llants’ version is repr oduced he re; the diff ere nces in the tra

nslations are immaterial. 7un de r co nt ract63 2. Acco rd in g t o B ari ve n andPSI, Ro sa le s s en t t he e-m ai ls

fo ll owi ng m eet in gs in Braz il with asupp li er tha t ra is edco nc ern s ab ou t Val id sa ’s pe rfo rm an ce u nd er s om e o f th e Nov em be r 20 07 co nt ract s fo r ch ic ke n. Be twee n Apr il 8, wh enRo sa le s s en t t he e-m ai ls , andApri l 1 5, wh enth e e-m ai ls were s en t to Vali ds a, no on e fro m

Bari ve n o r PSI i nf

orm edVali ds a th atBari ve n o r PSI in te nd edto can cel co nt ractNo. 7 57 , andth e co m pa ni es di d n otsee k t he return o f th e $ 44 .58 0 m il li on in adva nc e p aym en ts fro m Vali ds a. 3. Ap ril 17 E-m ai l an d Ap ril 29 Mee ti ng On Ap ril 17 , 20 08 , Vali ds a p rin ci pa l Go nz al ez s en t a l et te r to PSI reque st in g “ imm ed ia te ly a writt enex pl an at io n o f th e si tu at io n t ha t i s s etforth in th is [Ro sa le s] e-m ai l” an d “ de m an d[ in g] animm ed ia te res po ns e to th is si tu at io n.” Kab bo ul ag reedto m eetwith Go nz al ez. Kab bo ul an d Go nz al ez m eton Apri l 2 9, 2 00 8. Th ey di sc us se d t he st atus of ov er 1 ,27 5 m etric to ns of c hi ck enst il l u nd el iv eredun de r th e Nov em be r 20 07 co nt ract s an d h ow t o p ro ceedun de r th e Ma rch 20 08 co nt ract s. Kab bo ul pro po se d us in g t he adva nc e m on ey as p aym en t fo r th e fi rs t $ 44 m il li on in de li ve rie s u nd er th e Ma rch 20 08 co ntract s, the n u si ng let te rs of c red itforth e rem ai ni ng de li ve rie s. The parti es co ul d n otag ree o n h ow t o p ro ceed , andKabb ou l as ke d fo r a fo ll ow- up

8m eet in g o n M ay 2. Val id saag reedto th is fol lo w-up m eet in g, b utforreas on s n ot cl ear f ro m th e rec or d, t he m eet in g d idno t o ccur. 4. Val id sa ’s May 9 a ndMay 22 Let te rs On M ay 9, co un se l fo r Val id sasen t Kab bo ul a le tt er re qu es ti ng ad equa te as su ran ces of p erfo rm an ce wi th in fiv e d ay s. PSI res po nd edwith alet te r da te d May 16, 2 00 8, wh ic h s ta te d i n re le va ntpa rt: [We] ha ve [in fo rm ed ] y ou r co m pa ny se ve ral t i mes t h a t [] Vali ds a was no t in t e n d e d t o be th e reci pi en t of [] [th e in te rn al co m m un ic at io ns co nt ai ne d in Ms . Ri va s’s e-m ai l of Apr il 15 ], so th ey sh ou ld no t ha ve [b een ] ta ke n in to co ns id erat io n. F o r t h a t r e as on , we fin d it ve ry hard to un de rs tand ho w y ou r co m pa ny even tak es th e is su e to a le ga l p re-c la im co m m un ic at io n. On M ay 22 , Vali ds a se ntan ot he r le tt er t o P SI reg ret ti ng PSI’s l ackof a co nc ret e res po ns e to Vali ds a’s co m pl ai ntan d a sk in g t ha t PS I “ no rm al iz e th e la te pa ym en ts ” o n t he co ntract s. PSI di d n otdi rect ly resp on d t o t hi s l et te r, bu t i ns te ad se nta ne w dra ft a gr eem en t t o Val id saon June 3. 5. J un e 3 DraftAgre em en t The Ju ne 3 draftag reem en t was a tt ach edto ane-m ai l t o Val id safro m 4 Alfo nz o Gra vi na , Pur ch as in g M an ag er fo r PSI, an d c on ta in eda he ad er s ta ti ng

“ DRAFT W ITH NO LE GAL OR COMMERC IAL VALUE [si c].” The draft
Ag ain, the orig inal version of this e- mail was written in Spanish; we use the translation 4 provided to the district cour t. 9ag reem en t s ta te d tha t “ [t]he Part ie s b in d t he m se lv es to co m pl y with e ach an d ev ery on e o f th e rec ip ro cal ob li ga ti on s d eri vi ng fro m th e Pu rch as e Ord ers with res pe ctto th e am ou nt s t o b e d el iv eredsubs eque ntto ” ag reem en t o n t he se ne w te rm s. Th is dra ft a ls o c on ta in ed , in te r al ia , a ne w del iv ery sc he du le , a fo rum se le ct io n c laus e, an d, m os t i m po rta nt ly, la ng ua ge no w nam in g P SI as th e p art y res po ns ib le forpa y in g t he de bt s o wedVali ds a. The co ve r e-m ai l i nv it edVali ds a to

“ se ndto m e . . . any co m

m en ts y oum ay

have . . . .” Vali ds a d idno t re sp on d t o t hi s co m m un ic at io n, o r co nt actPSI o r Bar iv enat al l. In st eadof c on ta ct in g t he m , Vali ds a fi le d s ui t o n J un e 1 2, 2 00 8. At the ti m e th is laws ui t was fil ed , Vali ds a al le ge d t he st atus of t he co nt ract s was :

10Mar ch 20 08 Co ntract s Nov em be r 20 07 Co nt ract s Con tra ct 63 2 75 7 32 6 36 8 40 5 Subj ect Su ga r Bee f Bee f Ch ic ke n Bee f Val ue $4 4.7

m il li on $1 03 .9

m il li on $2 4.6

m il li on $2 1.4

m il li on $1 .5

m il li on Deli ve ry Sta tus No Del iv ery 1 i ns ta ll m en t de li ve red Co m

pl et e Co m

pl et e Co m

pl et e Unpa id Ba la nce 0 0 $1 ,59 9,9 23 $4 ,15 7,0 21 $6 2,4 87 Adv an ce Pai d on Apri l 2 $1 3,4 07 ,60 0 $3 1,1 72 ,97 6 n/ a n/ a n/ a
Sche dul ed Deli ve ry Dat e 9- Apr -0 8 30 -Ma r-0 8 n/ a n/ a n/ a

The on e in st al lm en t d el iv eredun de r Mar ch 20 08 co nt ract75 7 c on st itut ed42 7.3
m etric to ns of b eef. Gi ve n t he co nt ractpri ce o f $4 ,32 9.5 8 p er t on , th is in st al lm en t was arg uabl y

wort h abo ut$1 ,85 0,0 00 . At th e ti m e su itwas fi le d, PS I an d 5 Bari ve n o weda to ta l o f $5 ,81 9,4 31 on th e th ree No ve m be r 20 07 co nt ract s an d fo r th e o ne de li ve ry

on co nt ract75 7, b ut , no tabl y , Vali ds a st il l h adBari ve n’s $ 44 .58 0
m il li on inadva nc es . C. Clai m s a nd Co unte rcl ai m s
As discussed later , the district court ultimately awa rded V alidsa $1,298,821 in damag es 5 related to the g oods delivere d in this one installm ent on contra ct 757. 11Vali ds a fi le d i ts ori gi na l Co m pl ai ntin th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a o n J un e 1 2, 2 00 8, an d a n Am en de d C om pl ai nton Ju ly 3, 20 08 . Cou nt s I, II , andIII o f th is Am en de d C om pl ai ntall eg edbre ach es of th e Nov em

be r 20 07 co nt ractNos . 32 6, 3 68 , and40 5, re sp ect iv el y , cla im in g da m ag es of $ 1,5 99 ,92 3; $4 ,15 7,0 21 ; an d $ 62 ,48 7, fo r a t ot al of $ 5,8 19 ,43 1. Co un t IV al le ge d t ha t PS I an d B ari ve n ant ic ip at or il y rep ud ia te d c on tra ct 63 2 “ by ord eri ng th e su sp en si onof a ll pa ym en ts to []Valid saun de r Co nt ract63 2 an d s ub se qu en tl y

fai li ng to pro vi de ad equa te ass ur an ce t o []Vali ds a th atth ey wou ldho no r Co nt ract63 2 o n i ts ag reedterm s.” Vali ds a so ug htco m pe ns at ory da m ag es of $ 23 ,23 4,2 50 .00 , “ co ns eque nt ia l an d i nc id en ta l d am ag es in anam ou nt to be de te rm in ed , pre

jud gm en t an d p os t ju dg m en t i nt eres t, co st s, at to rn ey s’ fees , an d a ny oth er re li ef d eem edap pr op ria te by the Co urt.” Co un t V al le ge d t ha t PS I an d B ari ve n “ an ti ci pa to ril y rep ud ia te d C on tra ct75 7 a ndth eref or e m at eri al ly br each edth e co nt ractby ord eri ng th e can cel la ti on of, a ndth e su sp en si onof a ll pa ym en ts un de r, Co nt ract75 7, an d b y subs eque nt ly fail in g t o p ro vi de ad equa te as su ran ce t o []Vali ds a th atth ey wou ldho no r Co nt ract75 7 o n i ts ag reedterm s.” On t hi s C ou nt , Vali ds a so ug htactua l d am ag es of $ 1,2 98 ,82 1.1 1 fo r am ou nt s o wed to Vali ds a b y

Bari ve n fo r th e o ne sh ip m en t u nd er co nt ract75 7, l os t p ro fit s o f $1 6,3 09 ,92 0.0 0, an d c on se qu en ti al da m ag es “ in ex ces s o f $1 13 ,56 2,6 00 .” 12On No ve m be r 4, 2 00 8, PS I an d B ari ve n a ns wered , den y in g, i nt er al ia , th at th ey ha d a nt ic ip at or il y

rep ud ia te d c on tra ctNos . 63 2 a nd75 7. In t he same pl ead in g, Ba riv enbro ug htco un te rcl ai m s ag ai ns t Val id sa . In Co un t I, Ba riv en al le ge d t ha t Val id sabre ach edco nt ract63 2 b y fai li ng to de li ve r an y

su ga r aft er rece iv in g app ro xi m at el y

$1 3.4 m il li on inadva nc es fro m Bari ve n. In Co un t II , Bari ve n a ll eg edth atVali ds a b reac he d c on tra ct75 7 wh en , aft er re cei vi ng ap pr ox im at el y

$3 1.1 m il li on in adva nc es fro m Bari ve n, Val id sade li ve redon ly one pa rti al sh ip m en t o f be ef. Co un ts III an d IV a ll eg edun jus t en ric hm en t o n c on tra ct s 63 2 a nd75 7, re sp ect iv el y . Cou nt s V an d VI a ll eg eda br each of t he im pl ie d co ve nant s o f go odfai th , fai r de al in g, an d c omm erci al reas on ab le ne ss . Fin al ly, Co un t VII d em an de d a n e qu it ab le acco un ti ng . D. Dist ri ct Co urt’ s Rul in gs on Brea ch o f Con tra ct Cl ai m s Afte r th e p art ie s fi le d c ro ss -m ot io ns forsu m m ary jud gm en t, the di st ric t co urt i nv it edeach to subm itpro po se d o rd ers . On Ma rch 16 , 20 09 , th e p art ie s ea ch subm it te d p ro po se d o rd ers . On Ju ly 10, 2 00 9, t he di st ric t co urt ad op te d Val id sa ’s pr op os edord er i n i ts en ti rety . Vali ds a, In c. v. PDVSA Se rv s. In c., 63 2 F . Sup p. 2d12 19 (S.D. Fla . 20 09 ). The d is tri ctco urt fi rs t d et erm in edth atPSI an d B ari ve n br each edco nt ractNos . 32 6, 3 68 , 40 5, an d 7 57 by fail in g t o p ay forth e g oo ds actua ll y de li ve redun de r th os e co nt ract s. Id . at 1 22 8. 131. An ti ci pa to ry Rep ud ia ti on as t o C on tra ct s 6 32 an d 7 57 Nex t, the di st ric t co urt ad dr es se d Val id sa ’s cla im th atPSI an d B ari ve n an ti ci pa to ril y

rep ud ia te d c on tra ct s 6 32 an d 7 57 . Und er Fl a. St at . § 6 72 .60 9, a pa rty to aco nt ractcan m ak e a wri tt ende m an d fo r ad equa te ass ur an ces of pe rfo rm an ce “ [w]henreas on ab le gro un ds for in se curit y

ari se with re sp ectto th e pe rfo rm an ce o f [the ot he r pa rty] . . . .” Id . § 6 72 .60 9( 1) . Unt il th e reque st in g pa rty recei ve s s uc h a de qu at e as su ran ces , it“ m ay if c omm erci al ly reaso nabl e su sp en d a ny perfo rm an ce fo r whi ch[it ] ha s n otalr ead y rece iv edth e ag reed return.” Id. Whenth e p art ie s t o t he co nt ractare m erch an ts , “ th e rea so nabl en es s o f gr ou nd s fo r in se curit y

an d t he ad equa cy

of any ass ur an ce o ffer edsh al l b e de te rm in edacco rd in g t o c omm erci al st an da rd s.” Id . § 6 72 .60 9( 2) . If th e p art y rece iv in g the de m an d d oe s n otpro vi de ad equa te ass ur an ces withi n areas on ab le ti m e o f no m or e th anth irty day s, tha t fa il ur e is tre at edas arep ud ia ti on of t he co nt ract , all owi ng th e p art y reque st in g a ss ur an ces to su e fo r br each . Id. § 6 72 .60 9( 4) . The di stric t co urt d et erm in edth atVali ds a h adnu m ero us reas on ab le gro un ds fo r in se cu rit y , in cl ud in g t he all eg edki ckba ckde m an d b y Ch ou rio , th e Ri va s em ai l, an d t he factth atde fen da nt s wer e la te inth ei r pa ym en ts onso m e o f th e Nov em be r 20 07 co nt ract s. Val id sa , 63 2 F . Sup p. 2 d a t 1 23 0- 32 . The d is tri ctco urt 14reject edde fen da nt s’ arg um en t t ha t the advanc edfun ds pro vi de d a de qu at e se cu rit y

on th e g ro un ds th atBari ve n i s “ anag en cy of afor ei gn go ve rn m en t” th at“ co ul d st op pa y in g [Va li ds a] at an y ti m e if itde ci de d t o d o s o” an d b ecau se Vali ds a’s se cu rit y fro m th e ad va nc es was re du ceddu e to th e requi redpe rfo rm an ce b on ds . Id . at 1 23 1 (e m

ph as is ad de d) . The di stric t co urt al so de te rm in edth atVali ds a reque st edad equa te as su ran ces at l eas t t wice : (1 ) in th e Apr il 17 , 20 08 let te r se ntby V al id sapri nc ip al Gon zal ez; an d (2 ) inth e Ma y 9, 2 00 8 l et te r se ntto de fen da nt s b y Vali ds a’s le ga l co un se l. Id . at 1 23 3- 34 . The d is tri ctco urt re jecte d d efen da nt s’ arg um en t t ha t t he Apr il 17 let te r was no t a r eque stforad equa te ass ur an ces be cau se itdi d n otm irr or th e la ng ua ge of § 67 2.6 09 (1 ), co nc lu di ng th at“ th ere i s n o re qu ire m en t t ha t reque st s fo r as su ran ces tra ckth e st atut e.” Id . at 1 23 4. Itals o d is ag reedwith de fen da nt s’ arg um en t t ha t Val id saco ul d n otreque stad equa te ass ur an ces be cau se Vali ds a was in bre ach of t he co nt ract s, d et erm in in g s im pl y th atVali ds a was no t i n br each . Id. at12 35 -3 7. As t he fin al pro ng of i ts an ti ci pa to ry rep ud ia ti on an al y si s, the di stric t co urt de te rm in edth atth e d efen dant s d idno t p ro vi de Vali ds a wit h a de qu at e as su ran ces of pe rfo rm an ce. Id . at 1 23 7- 39 . It rejec te d d efen dant s’ con te nt io ns th atth ey ha d of fere d a de qu at e as su ran ces , su ch as i n t he Apri l 2 9 m eet in g a ndth e Ju ne 3 draft 15pr op os al . Id. at12 38 . The d is tri ctco urt i nd ic at edth atth es e p ro po se d c on tra ct

m od ifi cat io ns m ig htth em se lv es qu al ify as rep ud ia ti on s o f th e co nt ract s und er Fl a. St at . §6 72 .61 0. Id . at 1 23 8- 39 . 2. Ba riv en ’s Cou nt ercl ai m s The di stric t co urt al so gra nt edsu m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Vali ds a o n a ll of Bari ve n’s co un te rcl ai m s an d d is m is se d t he m with p reju di ce. Fi rs t, i t co nc lu de d th atBari ve n’s co un te rcl ai m s fo r br each of c on tra ct(Co un ts I an d II ) an d b reac h o f th e im pl ie d c ov en an t o f fai r de al in g a ndco m m erci al reas on ab le ne ss (Co un ts V an d VI) sh ou ldfai l b ecau se Bari ve n i ts el f br each edco nt ract s 6 32 an d 7 57 , anda pa rty in b reac h c an no t i ts el f m ai nt ai n acla im forbre ach . Id. at12 42 -4 3. Si m il arl y , un de r Fl or id a la w, if a p art y can no t p ro ve a br each of c on tra ct , it s cl ai m s fo r br each of t he im pl ie d c ov en an t o f fai r de al in g a ndco m m erci al reas on ab le ne ss als o m

us t fa il . Id. Bari ve n’s u nju sten ric hm en t co un te rcl ai m s (C ou nt s II I an d IV) fai le d be cau se , “un de r Fl or id a law, an u nju sten ric hm en t cl ai m m us t fa il up on th e sh owi ng of a n e xp res s co nt ract ,” an d “ [t]he pa rti es . . . adm it te d t o t he ex is te nc e o f ex pr es s co nt ract s . . . .” Id. at12 43 . As t o B ari ve n’s eq ui tabl e acc ou nt in g c ou nt ercl ai m (Co un t VII) , th e d is tri ct co urt s ta te d t ha t an equi tabl e acc ou nt in g re qu ire s “ a fi du ci ary rel at io ns hi p o r 16co m

pl ex tra ns act io n” an d t ha t t he pa rty seek in g t he acco un ti ng m us t h av e n o ad equa te rem edy

at l aw. Id. at12 44 . Becau se th e co urt d et erm in edth atth ere was no fiduc ia ry

rel at io ns hi p, t he trans act io n was no t co m pl ex , andBari ve n h adan ad equa te rem edy

at l aw, itgra nt edjud gm en t i n fa vo r of Vali ds a an d d is m is se d t he equi tabl e acc ou nt in g c ou nt ercl ai m . Id. at12 44 -4 5. E. Dis tri ct Co urt’ s E vi denc e a nd Da m ag es Ruli ng s Fo ll owi ng it s s umm ary jud gm en t ru li ng s, the di st ric t co urt h el d abe nc h t ria l on pl ai nt iff

Vali ds a’s da m ag es . Befo re the tri al , def en da nt s fi le d am ot io n i n li m in e to ex cl ud e ev id en ce o f da m ag es Vali ds a cl ai m editsu st ai ne d re la te d t o 20 ,36 9 e xt ra t on s o f be ef i n a n e arl ie r ve rs io n o f co ntract75 7, wh ic h was for 44 ,36 9 t on s o f be ef. The di st ric t co urt ag reedth atev id en ce o f th es e d am ag es sh ou ldbe ex cl ud ed , con cl ud in g t ha t co nt ract75 7 was ch an ge d t o i nc lu de on ly 24 ,00 0 t on s o f be ef an d t ha t t he da m ag es so ug htwere co ns eque nt ia l i n n atur e an d th eref or e n otreco ve rab le un de r Fl or id a la w. At the da m ag es tri al , PSI an d B ari ve n h adDr. Mig ue l Her ce t es ti fy as t he ir ex pe rt wi tn es s re ga rd in g Val id sa ’s all eg edda m ag es . Dr. Herce, a v al ua ti on s an d eco no m ic s ex pe rt, t es ti fie d abo utVali ds a’s lo stpro fit s u nd er co nt ract s 6 32 an d 75 7. Ho wev er, the di st ric t co urt ex cl ud edDr. Herce’s t es ti m on y as i t re la te d t o

17co m

m is si on s Val id sam ay

ha ve owedto th irdpa rti es an d t o fu tu re p ric e ch an ge s, st at in g t ha t t he tes ti m on y was s pe cu la ti ve an d u ns up po rte d b y th e rec or d. 6 Fo ll owi ng th e d am ag es tri al , th e d is tri ctco urt i ss ue d i ts Fin di ng s o f Fac t an d C on cl us io ns of Law. Itde te rm in edth atVali ds a was en ti tl edto a to ta l o f $4 0,7 64 ,09 3.3 0 i n d am ag es , bro ke n d ownas f ol lo ws: (1) $1 ,55 1,3 31 .00 for am ou nt s o wedun de r co nt ract32 6 i n C ou ntI; (2 ) $4 ,15 7,0 20 .56 for am ou nt s o wed un de r co nt ract36 8 i n C ou ntII; (3) $6 2,4 87 .95 foram ou nt s o wedun de r co nt ract 40 5 i n C ou ntIII; (4) $4 83 ,75 0 fo r in ci de nt al da m ag es an d $ 15 ,19 2,0 00 forlo st pr of it s (f ora to ta l o f $1 5,6 75 ,75 0.0 0) un de r co nt ract63 2 i n C ou ntIV; an d (5 ) $1 ,29 8,8 21 .18 forgo od s d el iv ered ; $ 2,0 00 ,00 0 fo r in ci de nt al da m ag es ; an d $1 6,0 18 ,68 2.5 9 fo r lo stpro fit s (f ora to ta l o f $1 9,3 17 ,50 3.7 7) un de r co nt ract75 7 in Co un t V. The di stric t co urt ru le d t ha t Val id sawas n oten ti tl edto pre jud gm en t i nt eres t on an y of t he se da m ag es (to ta li ng $4 0,7 64 ,09 3.9 3) be cau se itha d h el d t he rou gh ly $4 4.5 80 m il li on inadva nc es of d efen da nt s’ m on ey . Fin al ly, th e d is tri ctco urt de te rm in edth atde fen da nt s wer e en ti tl edto a se to ff o f th e ap pr ox im at el y $4 4.5 80
m il li on inadva nc es , reject in g Val id sa ’s cla im th atde fen da nt s h adwaiv edth is de fen se . PSIand B arive n did make a pr offe r of Dr .Her ce’ s excluded testimony . 6 18II . VALIDSA’S B REACH OF CONTRACT CLAI MS AND BARIVEN’S COUNTERCLAI MS On ap pe al , def

en da nt s PS I an d B ari ve n c on te ndth atth e d is tri ctco urt erred : (1 ) in gra nt in g s umm ary jud gm en t t o p la in ti ff Val id saon it s cl ai m s tha t PS I an d Bari ve n a nt ic ip at or il y

rep ud ia te d c on tra ct s 6 32 an d 7 57 an d (2 ) in gra nt in g 7
su m m ary jud gm en t t o Val id saon Bari ve n’s co un te rcl ai m s o n the ba se s tha t (i ) Bari ve n h adbre ach edco nt ract s 6 32 an d 7 57 an d t hu s co ul d n otm ai nt ai n abre ach of co nt ractcla im

it se lf a nd(ii ) certa in of i ts cla im s fa il edup on th e sh owi ng of a n ex pr es s co nt ract . PSI an d B ari ve n a rg ue gl ob al ly tha t Val id sash ou ldno t h av e 8 be enall owe d t o re ly on a nt ic ip at ory rep ud ia ti onun de r Fl a. St at . § 6 72 .60 9 be cau se Vali ds a was it se lf i n b reac h. In th e al te rn at iv e, de fen da nt s ar gu e th at is su es of f

actex is t as to whethe r: ( 1) Vali ds a h adreas on ab le gro un ds for in se cu rit y ; (2 ) Val id sam ad e a wri tt ende m an d fo r ad equa te ass ur an ces ; an d (3 ) PSI an d B ari ve n p ro vi de d a de qu at e as su ran ces . Arg ui ng th atth ere was no On appe al, B arive n does not cha lleng e the district cour t’s findingthat Ba

riven bre ache d 7 contra cts 326, 368, and 405, a s alleg ed in Counts I , I I , and I I I , wher e all the g oods contemplated by those contra cts wer e deliver ed. Ba riven a lso does not dispute the district court’s findingof liability for the $1,298,821 in g oods delivere d in the one installment under c ontrac t 757 in CountV. B ut Ba riven doe s dispute liability for, a nd the amount of, the othe r dama g es (f or lost profits and incidenta l damag es) in Count V relatingto contrac t 757. We reviewa district cour t’s grant of summar

y judgme nt de novo. Shuford v. F id. Nat’l 8 Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 508 F.3d 1337, 1341 (11th Cir. 2007). We view a ll facts and make all infere nces in the light most favorable to the non-movingparty . I d. 19an ti ci pa to ry

rep ud ia ti on , Bari ve n c on te nd s t ha t Val id sabre ach edco nt ract s 6 32 an d 7 57 an d t ha t Ba riv en ’s cou nt ercl ai m s s ho ul d b e rei ns ta te d. Und er Fl a. St at . § 6 72 .60 9( 1) , “ [w]henreas on ab le gro un ds forin se cu rit y ari se with re sp ectto th e p erfo rm an ce o f ei th er p art y th e o th er m ay

in writ in g de m an d a de qu at e as su ran ce o f du e p erfo rm an ce . . . .” Id. Bet ween m erch an ts , th e reas on ab le ne ss of g ro un ds forin se cu rit y is “ de te rm in edacco rd in g t o c omm erci al st an da rd s.” Id . § 6 72 .60 9( 2) . Once ade m an d fo r as su ran ces is m ad e, th e p art y rece iv in g the reque stha s a r eas on ab le ti m e n otto ex ceedth irt y day s t o p ro vi de

“ su ch ass ur an ce o f du e p erfo rm an ce as is ad equa te un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces of t he pa rti cu la r cas e.” Id . § 6 72 .60 9( 4) . A fail ur e to pro vi de ad equa te ass ur an ces wit hi n t ha t re as on ab le ti m e is tre at edas arep ud ia ti onof t he co nt ract . Id.

“ It i s g en eral ly a qu es ti on of f actwhet he r a [p art y ] ha s re as on ab le gro un ds fo r in se cu rit y

un de r [UCC] § 2 -6 09 . There are ci rcu m st an ces , ho wev er, wh ere t hi s is su e m ay be res ol ve d a s a m at te r of law.” B AII Ban ki ng Co rp . v. UPG, In c., 98 5 F.2 d 6 85 , 70 2 (2 d C ir. 1 99 3) (in te rn al cit at io ns om it te d) . Like wis e, whe th er an y as su ran ces off

eredare ad equa te un de r UCC § 2-6 09 is ord in ari ly a qu es ti on of fact , bu t m ay

be res ol ve d a s a m at te r of law wh enth e ev id en ce p res en te d i s s uc h th ata rat io na l t rie r of

factco ul d o nl y

arri ve at o ne co nc lu si on as t o the is su e. Kais er-F ran ci s Oi l Co . v. Pro du cer’s Gas Co ., 87 0 F .2d56 3, 5 68 (10 th Cir . 19 89 ); 20se e al so Adv an cedBo dycare So lu ti on s, LLC v . Thi on e In t’l, In c., 61 5 F .3d13 52 ,

13 61 & n .17 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (an al y zi ng Geor gi a UCC p ro vi si on s u nd er reas on ab le jury st an da rdan d i nd ic at in g t ha t que st io ns un de r equi va le ntGeor gi a pr ov is io n a re fa ctis su es forjury). Thu s, we m us t af firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s su m m ary jud gm en t o n the an ti ci pa to ry rep ud ia ti on is su e u nl es s we c on cl ud e th ata reas on ab le tri er o f fac t co ul d fi ndth atVali ds a la ck edreas on ab le gro un ds for in se cu rit y , th atVali ds a d idno t m ak e a wri tt ende m an d fo r ad equa te ass ur an ces , or th atPSI an d B ari ve n p ro vi de d Val id sawith a de qu at e as su ran ces of p erfo rm an ce. See C hapm anv. AI Tran sp ., 22 9 F .3d10 12 , 10 23 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (en ba nc ) (s ta ti ng th atno ge nu in e is su es of m at eri al factex is t u nl es s t he re i s en ou gh ev id en ce p res en te d b y

a no n- m ov in g p art y

fora reas on ab le jury to fin d i n t ha t pa rty’ s fa vo r). W e ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt’s s umm ary jud gm en t ru li ng s as to co nt ract s 63 2 a nd75 7 t ha t: (1) Vali ds a h adreas on ab le gro un ds forin se cu rit y ; an d (2 ) Vali ds a m ad e a wri tt ende m an d fo r ad equa te ass ur an ces . Howev er, fac t i ss ue s ex is t as to whet he r PSI a ndBari ve n p ro vi de d a de qu at e as su ran ces , pre cl ud in g su m m ary jud gm en t o n thi s l as t i ss ue . Am on g t he ev id en ce o n wh ic h atri er o f fac t co ul d b as e a co nc lu si on th atPSI an d B ari ve n d idpro vi de ad equa te ass ur an ces as to co nt ract s 6 32 an d 7 57 is : (1 ) th e v ari ou s d is cu ss io ns at the Apri l 2 9, 2 00 8 21m eet in g i n Ven ezu el a b etween Vali ds a p rin ci pa l Go nz al ez an d Kab bo ul ; (2 ) th e

le tt er s en t fr om

PSI an d B ari ve n t o Val id saon May 16, 2 00 8, t el li ng Vali ds a th at th e Apr il 15 Ro sa le s e- m ai l was sen t i n e rro r an d t o d is reg ardit s co nt en ts ; (3 ) th e Ju ne 3, 2 00 8 d raftag reem en t p ro po se d b y PSI an d B ari ve n ; an d (4 ) th e fac t t ha t 9 th e ap pr ox im at el y

$4 4.5 80 m il li on in adva nc es ha d n otbe enreduc edm uc h a t al l by the on e d el iv ery un de r co nt ract75 7 a nd , im po rta nt ly, ne it he r PSI n orBari ve n ha d re qu es te d t he return o f an y of t he adva nc e am ou nt s. Si m pl y pu t, s uf fic ie ntev id en ce ex is ts inth e rec or d a s a wh ol e fro m whi ch a reas on ab le jury co ul d c on cl ud e th atde fen da nt s o ffer edVali ds a ad equa te as su ran ces of p erfo rm an ce u nd er the cir cu m st an ces an d t hu s d idno t an ti ci pa to ril y br each co nt ract s 6 32 an d 7 57 . Acco rd in gl y , we fin d (1 ) th atth e d is tri ctco urt 1 0
We discuss the J une 3, 2008 dra ft agree ment to illus trate howa re asonable trier of fac t 9 might find that PSIand B arive n g ave a dequate assura nces. This dra ft agree ment proposed substitut ing PSIfor B arive n as the oblig ated pa rty and cha ng ing the delivery

schedule . A rea sonable trier

of fa ct might c onclude that this proposal c onstitut ed an attempt by Ba riven to g et out of its obligations and that it detra cts from the a rgument that PSIand B arive n g ave a dequate assura nces. O n the other ha

nd, the trier of

fac t might conc lude that PSIand B arive n wer e g iving assura nces to Va lidsa by

offe ringto have B arive n’s subsidiary PSI , as a c ompany

incorporated in the United States, oblig ated unde r the c ontrac ts as opposed to Ba riven, a n ag ency of a f oreign nation. A trier of

fac t could also agreewith PS Iand B arive n that the proposed c hang es to Validsa’s de livery

schedule wer e mer ely

tacit ac knowledgments that, due to the par ties’ disputes, Validsa wa s unable to deliver the g oods on the orig inal schedule , and thus they constituted an eff ort to acc ommodate Validsa. In other words, the new pr oposed deliver y schedule was possibly advanta g eous to Validsa a s it gave Va lidsa more time to perf orm. Additionally , Ba

riven asked f or Va lidsa’s comments on the dra ft agree ment. In this reg ard, w e conc lude Validsa ma de its reque st for ade quate a ssuranc es as of April 1 0 17, and the UCC provides that a merc hant has a

rea sonable time not to exceed thirty day s to 22erre d i n c on cl ud in g, as a m at te r of law, tha t PS I an d B ari ve n a nt ic ip at or il y rep ud ia te d a ndbre ach edco nt ract s 6 32 an d 7 57 an d (2 ) th atth is cas e m us t b e rem an de d fo r tr ia l as to whet he r PSI a ndBari ve n g av e ad equa te ass ur an ces th at th ey wou ldpe rfo rm

co nt ract s 6 32 an d 7 57 an d t hu s wh ethe r th os e co nt ract s wer e orwere n otbre ach edby Bariv en . Accor di ng ly, we va cat e th e g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of

Vali ds a o n C ou nt s IV an d V o f Val id sa ’s Am en de d Co m pl ai ntag ai ns t Ba riv enan d re m an d t ho se co un ts fortri al . 1 1 Giv enth is rul in g, we al so va cat e th e d is tri ctco urt’s s umm ary jud gm en t ru li ng s t ha t d is m is se d C ou nt s I, II , V, andVI of B ari ve n’s co un te rcl ai m s, g iv en th is di sm is sa l was ba se d o n t he di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in g t ha t Ba riv enha d b reac he d th e co nt ract s as a m at te r of law. Thu s, we re in st at e (1 ) Co un ts I an d II of 1 2 respond to a r equest for

adequa te assura nces of perf ormanc e. F la. Stat. § 672.609(4). The district court dete rmined the de fenda nts’ anticipatory

repudiation occurr ed on April 29, but that findingis inconsistent with t he UCC and the f acts. De fenda

nt Ba riven’s thirty-day

window had not closed yet, and, view ing therec ord as a whole, a jur

y could find B arive n’s April 29 proposa ls wer e material chang es indicatingBa riven would not per form, or c ould find Ba riven’s pr oposals did not necessa

rily mean B arive n would ref

use to perf

orm the contra cts. We note the district court’s da mag e ca lculations did not appear to depend on the da

te the alleg ed repudiation occur red. Given our r

ulings that PSIand B arive n’s communications re g ardingcontra cts 632 and 1 1 747 may have c onstitut ed ade quate a ssuranc es of pe rfor mance , we a lso rever se the district court’s judgment that the proposed modific ations constituted repudiations of those c ontrac ts. Validsa, 632 F . Supp. 2d at 1238-39. For purposes of V alidsa’s a

nticipatory

repudiation claims, the district court deter mined 1 2 that Validsa did not brea ch contr acts 632 a nd 757 by failingto timely

deliver the food and Validsa wa s thus not precluded f rom rely ing on the anticipatory

repudia tion provision of the UCC (Fla. Stat. § 672.609). Va lidsa, 632 F. Supp. 2d at 1235. Any delay by Validsa in its 23Bari ve n’s co un te rcl ai m s, wh ic h a ll eg edVali ds a b reac he d c on tra ct s 6 32 an d 7 57 ,

res pe ct iv el y , and(2) Co un ts V andVI of B ari ve n’s co un te rcl ai m s, t o t he ex te nt Bari ve n a ll eg edVali ds a b reac he d t he im pl ie d dut ie s o f co m

m erci al reas on ab le ne ss , go odfai th , andfai r de al in g a s t o c on tra ct s 6 32 an d 7 57 . 1 3 Howev er, we fi ndno erro r in th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si onto di sm is s Bari ve n’s co un te rcl ai m s fo r un jus t en ric hm en t i n C ou nt s II I an d IV o n t he ba si s th atth es e cl ai m s fa il on th e sh owi ng of a n e xp res s co ntract . W e al so fin d n o e rro r in th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on to di sm is s B ari ve n’s co un te rcl ai m foranequi tabl e acco un ti ng in Co un t VII o n t he gro un ds th atth ere was no fiduc ia ry rel at io ns hi p be twee n the pa rti es , th e tr an sa ct io n was no t co m pl ex , andBari ve n h adanad equa te

deliverie s resulted fr om the timing of the de fenda nts’ pay ments of the adva

nces. I d. Moreove r, the contra cts did not contain a time-is-of -the-e ssence clause , the def endants did not object whe n they lear ned deliver

y would be dela

yed due to the timingof the a dvance pay ments, and defe ndants neve r notified Va lidsa that a dela y in deliveringthe food c onstitut ed a br eac h of contra cts 632 and 757. I d. at 1236-37 & n.17. So as of ea rly J une 2008, and a s to delay in delivery , there was no bre ach by Validsa. We find no re versible e rror in this partial ruling. We point out, however, that this does not resolve the issue of whe ther Va lidsa wrong ly terminated the contra cts by wrong ly acc using de fenda

nts of anticipatory

repudiation and there by itself brea ched the contra cts. In this reg ard, the only fac tual issue as to liability on contra cts 632 and 757 is whethe r or not B arive n g ave a dequate assura nces. I f B arive n failed to g ive ade quate assura nces, the n Ba

riven bre ache d contra cts 632 and 757. I f B arive n g ave a dequate assura nces and did not anticipatorily brea ch, then Va lidsa brea ched by wrong fully

terminatingcontra cts 632 and 757. We stress, as to Counts V and VI , that we r ever se bec ause the district court’s dismissal

1 3 was ba sed on B arive n’s havingbrea ched c ontrac ts 632 and 757 as a ma tter of law . Nothing here in examines or expresses any opinion on any

other grounds ra ised in the district court as to Ba riven’s c laims in Count s V and VI . 24rem edy

at l aw. Becaus e th e d is m is sa l o f Co un ts III, IV, an d VII was c orrect ly de ci de d o n g ro un ds ot he r th anBari ve n’s p ur po rte d b reac h o f th e co ntract s, we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s s umm ary jud gm en t ru li ng s as to , anddi sm is sa l o f, Co un ts III, IV an d VII of B ari ve n’s co un te rcl ai m s.

II I. PSI ’S I NDIVI DUAL LIAB IL IT Y InFlo rid a, “ [t]he law i s wel l s et tl edth atanag en t i s n otpe rs on al ly liab le for th e co nt ractde bt s o f a d is cl os edpri nc ip al , abs en t anexpr es s ag reem en t t o t he co nt rary.” K an ov v. Bi tz , 66 0 S o. 2 d 1 16 5, 1 16 5- 66 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct . App . 19 95 ).

“ If the co nt ract in g p art y

kn ows th e id en ti ty of th e p rin ci pa l, the pri nc ip al is de em eddi sc lo se d.” Phi li p S ch wart z, In c. v. Go ldCo as t Graph ic s, In c., 62 3 S o. 2 d 81 9, 8 20 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct . App . 19 93 ). Inth e d is tri ctco urt, PSI arg ue d t ha t i t s ho ul d n otbe in di vi du al ly liab le on th e co nt ract s b ecau se itwas t he ag en t o f th e d is cl os edpri nc ip al Bari ve n a nd“ di d no t ex pr es s o r im

pl y anin te ntto it se lf b e b ou ndby the Co nt ract s.” Val id sa , 63 2 F. Supp . 2dat 1 23 9. Val id saco nt en de d, h owe ve r, th atPSI m an ife st edanin te ntto be bo un d t o t he co nt ract s, an d t he di st ric t co urt ag reed . Id. at12 40 . The d is tri ct co urt p oi nt edto : (1 ) te st im on y fro m PSI em pl oyees s ta ti ng th atth ey

be li ev edPSI wou ldbe li ab le in th e ev en t o f a b reac h; (2) th e fac t t ha t PS I ne go ti at edth e co nt ract s; (3) a le tt er PSI ga ve to Vali ds a fo r pr es en ta ti on to th irdpa rti es 25de sc rib in g P SI an d Val id sa ’s bu si ne ss rel at io ns hi p; an d (4 ) th e draftag reem en t,

whi chrem ov edBari ve n a s an ob li ga te d p art y an d m ad e PSI s ol el y

res po ns ib le for th e d eb ts un de r th e co ntract s. Id . at 1 24 0- 42 . Giv enitis un di sp ut edth atPSI was th e ag en t o f th e d is cl os edpri nc ip al Bari ve n, t he ev id en ce i n t hi s ca se is no t n earl y th e quantum

requi redto ho ldth e ag en t o f a d is cl os edpri nc ip al li ab le forth e p rin ci pa l’s o bl ig at io ns un de r Fl or id a la w. In Fl or id a, “ [a]bs en t an ex pr es s ag reem en t, anag en t ac ti ng fora di sc lo se d pr in ci pa l i s n otpe rs on al ly liab le forth e d eb ts of t he pri nc ip al .” And rew H. Bo ro s, P.A. v. Arn ol d P . Cart er, M.D., P.A., 53 7 S o. 2 d 1 13 4, 1 13 5 (F la . Dis t. Ct . App . 19 89 ). Whi le Flo rid a co urts do oft encit e th e p rin ci pl e th atanag en t m ay be he ld li ab le when “ ci rcu m st an ces sh ow[ ] th atpe rs on al res po ns ib il ity was i nt en de d t o b e in cu rred ,” Fi rs t Au to . Serv . Cor p., N.M. v . Firs t Co lo ni al Ins . Co., No . 3: 07 -cv 68 2- J- 32 TEM, 20 08 W L 81 69 73 , at * 5 (M .D. Fla. Mar. 25 , 20 08 ), th e co urts rare ly findli ab il it y

in th is si tu at io n. Ins te ad , th e co urts tre atli ab il it y for ag en ts 1 4
as th e rar e ex cep ti on , res ul ti ng inFlo rid a la w th atanag en t i s n otli ab le forth e ob li ga ti on s o f a d is cl os edpri nc ip al “ ab se ntanex pr es s ag reem en t t o t he co nt rary.” Kan ov , 66 0 S o. 2 d a t 1 16 5- 66 . At oral a rgument, counsel for

Validsa c ould point us t o no published decision wher e the 1 4 Florida courts ac tually

held an a g ent liable for

the obliga

tions of a disclosed princ ipal when the ag ent did not make an e x press indication of its int ent to be bound. 26Inth is cas e, Bari ve n was PSI’s d is cl os edpri nc ip al , andPSI n ev er ex pr es sl y

ag reedto be li ab le for

Bari ve n’s o bl ig at io ns . Non e o f th e ev id en ce p res en te d b y Vali ds a—t es ti m on y

fro m PSI em pl oyees, PS I’s ne go ti at io n o f th e co nt ract s o n Bari ve n’s b eh al f, th e rel at io ns hi p- de sc rib in g l et te r, an d t he dra ft ag reem en t— sh ows an y

in te ntto be bo un d o n P SI’s p art . Ins te ad , th is act iv it y fal ls squa rel y in to th e ag en t i m

m un it y carv edou t i n F lo rid a la w for“ de bt s o r ob li ga ti on s o f th e p rin ci pa l ar is in g fr om co nt ract s wh ic h the ag en t m ay ne go ti at e orex ecu te on be ha lf o f . . . [a] di sc lo se d p rin ci pa l.” Su ss m anv. Fi rs t Fi n. Ti tl e Co . of Fl a., 79 3 S o. 2 d 1 06 6, 1 06 8 (F la . Dis t. Ct . App . 20 01 ). Non e o f th e ev id en ce ci te d b y

Vali ds a d em on st rat es th atPSI ex pr es se d a n i nt en t t o b e b ou ndto th e co nt ract s, o r m an ife st edan y in te ntco nt rary to i ts rol e as ag en t o n b eh al f of di sc lo se d p rin ci pa l Ba riv en . 1 5 Giv enou r de te rm in at io n t ha t PS I di d n otexpr es s an in te ntto be bo un d b y co nt ract s 6 32 an d 7 57 , we con cl ud e th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin gra nt in g Vali ds a’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t an d i n d en y in g P SI’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t as to PSI’s i nd iv idua l l iabi li ty to Val id sa . W e th eref or e rev ers e an d

Validsa’s c itation of case s from other jurisdictions is unavailing . In this diversity 1 5 action, the F lorida’s a g ency law g overns. 27rem an d t o t he di stric t co urt wi th in st ru ct io ns to en te r jud gm en t i n fa vo r of PSI o n Vali ds a’s cl ai m s i n i ts Am en de d C om pl ai nt . IV. EXCLUDED EVI DENCE Each pa rty app eal s t he di st ric t co urt’s ex cl us io n o f certa in ev id en ce fr om th e d am ag es tri al . PSI an d B ari ve n app eal th e d is tri ctco urt’s ex cl us io n o f certa in te st im on y by the ir e co no m ic s ex pe rt, Dr. Herc e. Vali ds a ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s ex cl us io n o f it s ev id en ce re la ti ng to 20 ,36 9 e xt ra t on s o f be ef o rig in al ly in cl ud edin co nt ract75 7. A. PSI a nd Ba ri ve n’s Eco no m ic s E xp ert At tria l, Dr. Herc e was all owe d t o t es ti fy ab ou t Val id sa ’s dam ag es on co nt ract s 6 32 an d 7 57 . Howev er, the di st ric t co urt ex cl ud edth e p orti on s o f Dr. Herce ’s tes ti m on y

rel at in g t o: (1) futur e co stin crea se s fo r Val id sainob ta in in g su ga r an d b eef t o s at is fy

it s co nt ract s wi th PSI an d B ari ve n; an d (2 ) co m m is si on s Vali ds a wou ldowe o n fu tu re co nt ract s wi th it s s up pl ie rs . The d is tri ctco urt 1 6 de te rm in edth atDr. Herce’s t es ti m on y as t o fu tu re p ric e in crea se s was sp ecu la ti ve an d t ha t t he re was “ no ev id en ce i n t he reco rdth atth ere was an y ch an ge ” in th e

“We re view for

abuse of discretion the district cour t’s decisions re g ardingthe 1 6 admissibili ty

of expert testimony

. . . .” United States v. F razier, 387 F .3d 1244, 1258 (11th Cir. 2004). We do not reve rse unless the district c ourt’s dec ision is m anife stly err oneous, and the district court enjoy s considera ble leew ay

in determiningwhether

to admit expert testimony . I d. 28fu tu re p ric es . Sim il arl y , th e d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d t ha t Dr. Herc e co ul d n ot

te st ify abo utth e eff

ectof c omm is si on s o n Val id sa ’s lo stpro fit s b ecau se “ th ere’s no co nt ract. . . to pay

. . . an y co m m is si on s atall on co nt ract75 7.” Bec au se th ere was no ev id en ce o f anag reem en t t o p ay any co m m is si on onco ntract75 7, t he di st ric t co urt p recl ud edHerce f ro m tes ti fy in g t o t he im

pa ctco m m is si on s wo ul d ha ve ha d o n Val id sa ’s pro fit s. Fo ll owi ng th e ex cl us io n o f th is po rti on of Dr. Herce ’s tes ti m on y , PSI an d B ari ve n s ub m it te d a n o fferof p ro of sh owi ng ho w Dr. Herce de riv edhi s ca lc ul at io ns on th e im pa ctsupp ly pric e fl uc tu at io ns an d co m m is si on s wo ul d h av e h adon Vali ds a’s lo stpro fit s. On ap pe al , PSI an d B ari ve n a rg ue th atDr. Herce’s t es ti m on y sh ou ldha ve be enall owe d, b ecau se wher e th ere i s a r eas on ab le factua l b as is foranex pe rt’s op in io n, t he co urts sh ou ldno t ex cl ud e h is tes ti m on y . Uni te d S ta te s v . 0.1 61 Acres of Land , 83 7 F .2d10 36 , 10 40 (11 th Cir . 19 88 ). They ass ertth atDr. Herce’s te st im on y was re le vantan d d idha ve a reas on ab le factua l b as is . Howev er, g iv en th e rec or d h ere, we ca nn otsay the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n e xc lu di ng th is asp ectof Dr. Her ce’s t es ti m on y . At be st , Dr. Herce’s t es ti m on y on bo thfutur e pr ic e fl uc tu at io ns an d o n c omm is si on s t o b e p ai d re st edon a se rie s o f fu tu re ev en ts whi ch were s pe cu la ti ve . The co nt ractbe twee n Val id saan d i ts supp li er al lo wedth e supp li er t o re ne go ti at e th e p ric e o f th e b eef o nl y if t he de li ve ry

of t he 29be ef was po stpo ne d p as t Oct ob er 3 1, 2 00 8. Th ere i s n o e vi de nc e in th e rec or d

in di cat in g tha t i f th e co nt ract s h adpro ceed ed(wit ho utth e d efen da nt s’ all eg ed br each ), th ende li ve rie s wo ul d n eces sa ril y ha ve happ en edaft er Oct ob er 3 1, 2 00 8. W it h re sp ectto th e p ric e fl uc tu at io ns , Dr. Herce’s t es ti m on y th eref or e d ep en de d on (1) a de la y

of d el iv eri es oc cu rri ng un de r co nt ract75 7 p as t Oct ob er 3 1, 2 00 8; (2 ) th ataft er Oct ob er 3 1, 2 00 8, Val id saan d i ts supp li er wo ul d h av e in factag reed to ch an ge th e p ric e Val id sawou ldpa y ; (3 ) th atth is pri ce wo ul d re pr es en t an in crea se ov er the pri ce the y ha d p rev io us ly agree d t o; an d (4 ) th atth e p ric e wou ld refl ectris es in th e Ch ic ag o M erca nt il e Exc ha ng e p ric e an d o th er s ou rces , as as su m edby D r. Herce . Giv enth e num be r of futur e ev en ts an d s te ps requi red , th e di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n fi nd in g t hi s t es ti m on y sp ecu la ti ve . Si m il arl y , Dr. Herce’s p ro po se d t es ti m on y as t o t he im

pa ctof c omm is si on s on Vali ds a’s lo stpro fit s i nv ol ve d c on jectu re. Dr. Herce ’s pro po se d t es ti m on y was th at , in20 07 , Vali ds a p ai d $ 2.2 m il li on in co m m is si on s o n n etbe ef o rd ers of $2 6,1 42 ,82 5, fo r a co m

m is si on rat e o f 8.4 %. Dr. Herce th enpro po se d t o app ly th is same comm is si onrat e to co nt ract75 7, wh ic h wo ul d re su ltin a co m m is si on of $8 ,58 8,2 02 , andwou ldha ve de crea se d Val id sa ’s pro fit s b y th e sa m e am ou nt . Howev er, thi s t es ti m on y

wou ldha ve : (1 ) as su m edVali ds a wou ldpa y co m m is si on s o n c on tra ct75 7 a nd(2) ass um edth atVali ds a wou ldpa y th e sa m e 30rat e o f co m

m is si on s as itdi d o n i ts 20 07 be ef co nt ract s. Th ere was no ev id en ce Vali ds a wou ldha ve owedth e p art ic ul ar b ro ke r who itpa idco m m is si on s fo r th e 20 07 co nt ract s an y

co m m is si on s. Val id saon ly adm it te d t ha t t he bro ke r ha d as si st edinsec ur in g c on tra ct s g en eral ly, no t t ha t t he bro ke r was in vo lv edin se cu rin g c on tra ct75 7 o r th atth e b ro ke r was oweda co m m is si on . Giv enth atth e reco rddo es no t co nt ai n a ny sort o f br ok er co nt ractor o th er co ntractco nt em pl at in g th e p aym en t o f co m

m is si on s o n c on tra ct75 7, we ca nn otsay tha t t he di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n e xc lu di ng th is tes ti m on y eit he r. PSI an d B ari ve n’s re li an ce o n 0 .16 1 Acr es of Lan d i s u na va il in g. In th at cas e, th e d efen da ntin anem in en t d om ai n a ct io n s ou gh t t o h av e it s ex pe rt eco no m is t t es ti fy

ab ou t t he pri ce o f si m il arl y -s itua te d l an d i n re cen t t ran sa ct io ns . Id ., 83 7 F .2dat 1 03 9. Th e d is tri ctco urt ex cl ud edth e ex pe rt’s t es ti m on y , co nc lu di ng th atitwas m or e p reju di ci al th anpro ba ti ve , andwou ldco nf us e th e is su es in th e cas e. Id . at 1 04 0. Th is Co urt re ve rs ed , fin di ng th atth e ex cl ud ed ex pe rt t es ti m on y

was h ig hl y

pro ba ti ve an d tha t t he di st ric t co urt ab us edit s di sc ret io n i n e xc lu di ng it . Id. at10 42 . This cas e p res en ts a ve ry di ffer en t si tu at io n. In 0.1 61 Acres of Lan d, t he ex pe rt’s t es ti m on y was b as edon hi s 2 00
- ho urstud y

of 1 45 lan d s al es ov er an eig ht -y ear p eri odin th e rel ev an t ar ea. Id . at 10 39 . Thattes ti m on y

ha d aso li d fa ctua l b as is –i t re pr es en te d a ctua l t ran sa ct io ns

31th atpa rti es ha d u nd ert ak eninth e p ert in en t g eo gr ap hi cal area . Here, Dr. Herce’s

te st im on y rel at edto tra ns act io ns th atVali ds a m ig htha ve en te redin to in th e fu tu re gi ve n ahypo th et ic al setof f act s. Fo r al l o f th es e rea so ns , we fin d n o re ve rs ib le erro r in th e d is tri ctco urt’s de ci si on to ex cl ud e th es e p orti on s o f Dr. Herce ’s tes ti m on y ba se d o n t he pa rti cu la r ev id en ti ary fo un da ti on an d que st io ns at the fir sttri al . Howev er, g iv enou r rev ers al an d re m an d fo r a n ew tr ia l o n the bre ach of c on tra ctis su es , no th in g h erei n pr ecl ud es at t he ne w tri al tes ti m on y by D r. Herce th atha s t he requi si te factua l ba si s fo r hi s o pi ni on tes ti m on y . B. Val id sa ’s Cons eque nti al Damag es The di stric t co urt g ran te d d efen da nt s’ m ot io n i n l im in e to ex cl ud e ev id en ce of Vali ds a’s co ns eque nt ia l d am ag es st em m in g fr om

th e al le ge d e xt ra 2 0,3 69 to ns of be ef i n c on tra ct75 7. Vali ds a’s Am en de d C om pl ai ntdi d n otpl eadth is ex tra 20 ,36 9 t on s o f be ef, n ordi d Val id sarai se th atarg um en t i n t he su m m ary jud gm en t st ag e. The d is tri ctco urt d et erm in edth atco nt ract75 7 was foron ly 24,0 00 to ns

1 7

Validsa a

rgues that its claim reg ardingthe 20,369 tons of bee f wa s pled in its Amended 1 7 Complaint because c erta in parts of the pur chase order attache d to the Amended Complaint state that the re quired qua

ntity of bee f wa s 44,369 tons (i.e., 24,000 plus 20,369). But these documents do not cha

ng e the f act that Va lidsa pled that the contra ct was f or only 24,000 tons, and neve r mentioned the 44,369 numbe r in the body of its Amended Complaint. Moreove r, in mere ly ref ere ncing44,369 tons, the purcha se orde r does not explain the signific ance of that number or its re lationship to t he 24,000 ton figure a lleg ed in the complaint. 32of

be ef. Bec au se co nt ract75 7 d idno t o bl ig at e th e p art ie s t o s el l an d b uy the se ad di ti on al 20 ,36 9 t on s o f be ef, Val id sa ’s cla im ne ces sa ril y

was fo r co ns eque nt ia l da m ag es rel at edto co nt ract75 7. Th e d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d t ha t Fl or id a la w do es no t al lo w forth e se ll er’s rec ov ery of co ns eque nt ia l d am ag es , andde ni ed Vali ds a’s at te m

ptto reco ve r th es e ad di ti on al da m ag es . On ap pe al , Vali ds a 1 8
co nt en ds th atth e ad di ti on al pro fit s i t s eek s ar e n otco ns eque nt ia l i n n atur e, an d th atev enif t he y

are, Fl or id a la w m ig htall ow t he reco ve ry of c on se qu en ti al da m ag es . Co ns eque nt ia l d am ag es do no t ar is e d ire ct ly from th e tr an sa ct io n b etween pa rti es to a co nt ract , “bu t ra th er s te m fro m lo ss es in cu rredby the no n- br each in g pa rty in i ts de al in gs , oft enwith t hi rdpa rti es , whi ch were a p ro xi m at e res ul t o f th e br each , andwhi chwere re as on ab ly fores eeab le by the bre ach in g p art y at t he ti m e of co nt ract in g.” HardwickPro ps ., Inc . v. Newb ern , 71 1 S o. 2 d 3 5, 4 0 (F la . Dis t. Ct . App . 19 98 ). Giv enth e d et erm in at io n t ha t co nt ract75 7 was for24 ,00 0 t on s o f be ef, an d t he co ns is te ntpl ead in g b y Vali ds a, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in co nc lu di ng th atan y

da m ag es be y on d t ho se for 24 ,00 0 t on s o f be ef were
The que stions whether: (1) the damag es Va lidsa seeks to re cover are conseque ntial 1 8 damag es and ( 2) Va lidsa, as a se ller, ca n rec over c onsequential damag es under Florida law ar e leg al questions which we revie w de novo. See St. P aul Fir e & Marine I ns. Co. v. L ag o Canyon, Inc., 561 F .3d 1181, 1186 n.10 (11th Cir. 2009) (statingwe r eview le g al questions de novo). 33co ns eque nt ia l d am ag es . Thu s, we m us t ex am in e Fl or id a la w abo utco ns eque nt ia l da m ag es . W e ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt t ha t Fl or id a la w do es no t al lo w forreco ve ry of a se ll er’s co ns eque nt ia l d am ag es . In Fl or id a Mi ni ng & Mat eri al s C or p. v . St an da rdGy

ps um Co rp ., 55 0 S o. 2 d 4 7 (F la . Dis t. Ct . App . 19 89 ), th e Fl or id a ap pe ll at e co urt s ta te d t ha t, “ Whi le anag gr ie ve d b uyer m ay reco ve r co ns eque nt ia l da m ag es fora se ll er’s b reac h o f co nt ract. . . , an a gg rie ve d s el le r is li m it edto reco ve rin g l os t p ro fit s an d i nc id en ta l d am ag es as i ts rem edy fora br each of co nt ract .” Id . at 4 8. Val id saarg ue s t ha t we ca n i gn or e th is rul in g b ecau se th e Fl or id a Mi ni ng co urt “ di d n otco ns id er o th er p ro vi si on s o f th e [U.C.C.]” an d t ha t we can di sr eg ardth e Fl or id a ap pe ll at e co urt’s d eci si on if “ th ere i s p ers ua si ve ev id en ce tha t t he hi gh es t s ta te co urt wo ul d ru le othe rwis e.” Pen de rg as t v . Spr in t Nex te l Co rp ., 59 2 F .3d11 19 , 11 33 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . The form er s ta te m en t i s u np ers ua si ve , andwhi le th e la tt er s ta te m en t i s a v al id fo rm ul at io n o f la w, Vali ds a h as no t p res en te d s uf fic ie ntev id en ce t o s ug ge stth at th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt wo ul d ru le th atco ns eque nt ia l d am ag es are av ai labl e to anag gr ie ve d s el le r. Ther efo re, we aff irm th e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng ex cl ud in g ev id en ce o f Val id sa ’s all eg edco ns eque nt ia l d am ag es rel at edto th e ad di ti on al 20 ,36 9 t on s o f be ef. 34V. PREJUDGME NT INT EREST

Und er Fl or id a la w, “ ne it he r th e m eri t o f th e d efen se no r th e certa in ty of th e am ou ntof l os s af

fect s t he awardof p reju dg m en t i nt eres t.” Arg on au t In s. Co . v. May Plu m

bi ng Co ., 47 4 S o. 2 d 2 12 , 21 5 (F la . 19 85 ). Ins te ad , “ th e lo ss it se lf i s a wro ng fu l d ep riv at io n b y

th e d efen da ntof t he pl ai nt iff ’s pro pe rty,” and“ [p ]lain ti ff is to be m ad e who le fro m th e d at e o f th e lo ss on ce a fi nd er o f fac t h as de te rm in ed th e am ou ntof d am ag es an d d efen da nt ’s li ab il it y th eref or .” Id . Putm or e su cci nc tl y , un de r th is “ lo ss th eo ry ,” if “ a v erd ic t l iqui da te s d am ag es on a pl ai nt iff’s ou t-o f-p oc ke t, p ecu ni ary lo ss es , pl ai nt iff is en ti tl ed , as am at te r of law, to pre jud gm en t i nt eres t atth e st atut ory rat e fro m th e d at e o f th atlo ss .” Id . 1 9 Whi le th e ab ov e la ng ua ge is de fin it iv e ab ou t p la in ti ffs ’ en ti tl em en t t o pr ejud gm en t i nt eres t, “ [t]hi s g en eral rul e is no t ab so lu te .” Bro wardCty. v. Fi nl ay so n, 5 55 So . 2d12 11 , 12 13 (Fl a. 19 90 ). Ins te ad , “ ‘[i]nte res t i s n ot reco ve redacco rd in g t o arig idth eo ry of c om pe ns at io n fo r m on ey

withh el d, b utis gi ve n i n re sp on se to co ns id erat io ns of f ai rn es s. Itis de ni edwhen it s ex act io n wou ldbe in equi tabl e.’” Id. (quo ti ng Fla ckv. Grah am , 46 1 S o. 2 d 8 2, 8 4 (F la .

A par ty ’s entitlement to prejudgment interest is a que stion of state law that we revie w de 1 9 novo. Millenium P artne rs, L .P. v. Col mar Storag e, L L C, 494 F.3d 1293, 1304 (11th Cir. 2007). 3519 84 )). Thu s, “ th e la w is no t ab so lu te an d m ay de pe ndon equi tabl e co ns id erat io ns .” Fin la y so n, 5 55 So . 2dat 1 21 3. The di stric t co urt d et erm in edth atVali ds a was no t en ti tl edto reco ve r pr ejud gm en t i nt eres t o n a ny of th e co nt ract s, s ay in g i t h ad“ fai le d t o s us ta in it s bu rd enof p ro of

th atitpa idit s o wn fu nd s (o r was de pr iv edof i ts own fun ds ) du rin g t he se co nt ract s, jus ti fy in g p reju dg m en t i nt eres t.” Th e d is tri ctco urt re jecte d Vali ds a’s arg um en t t ha t, atlea st , th e m on ey adva nc edonco nt ract s 6 32 an d 7 57 sh ou ldno t ap pl y

to am ou nt s due un de r co nt ract s 3 26 , 36 8, an d 4 05 , fin di ng th at

“ itwou ldbe un fai r an d i ne qu it ab le to awardPla in ti ffs any pre jud gm en t i nt eres t be cau se Pla in ti ff’s d am ag es do no t ex ceedth e am ou ntwhi ch itwas a dv an ced .” The di st ric t co urt fo un d t ha t Val id sadi d n otsu ffera lo ss of m on ey be cau se ithe ld PSI’s an d B ari ve n’s ad va nc es at t he ti m e o f tr ia l. The di st ric t co urt ad di ti on al ly fo un d tha t, h adPSI o r Bar iv enbre ach edan y of t he co nt ract s, the y

co ul d d o no th in g t o p rev en t Val id sa“ fro m us in g Def

en da nt ’s m on ey

in it s co nt ro l t o o ff-s et m on ey itwas o wedun de r th e o th er co nt ract s.” The c ou rt c on cl ud edth atVali ds a ha d p os se ss io n o f th e adva nc e p aym en ts be fo re PSI or B ari ve n b reac he d any of th e fiv e co nt ract s atis su e, an d c on se qu en tl y Vali ds a d idno t s uf

fer alo ss of m on ey un de r an y of t ho se co nt ract s. Giv enth es e fac ts , th e d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d t ha t

36an y

awardof p reju dg m en t i nt eres t t o Val id sawou ldco ns ti tu te a win df al l, “ a res ul t th atth e co urts of F lo rid a d o n otco un te na nc e.” On ap pe al , Vali ds a arg ue s t ha t (1 ) th e d am ag es am ou ntdu e u nd er the Nov em be r 20 07 co nt ract s was “ a li qu id at edam ou ntan d Val id sawas e nt it le d t o pr ejud gm en t i nt eres t o n i t” an d (2 ) “ th e ad va nc es ha d n ot hi ng to do with t he 20 07 Co nt ract s an d d idno t re du ce the am ou ntowedun de r th e 2 00 7 C on tra ct s,” a nd th eref or e itwas e rro r to tak e th e ad va nc es in to acco un t wh enan al y zi ng th e p art ie s’ ob li ga ti on s u nd er the Nov em be r 20 07 co nt ract s. Vali ds a as se rts th atth ere was an un di sp ut edam ou ntowedun de r th e Nov em be r 20 07 co nt ract s, tha t l iabi li ty aros e as of a gr eed -upo n d at es , andth atin te res t s ho ul d h av e b een award edfro m th os e da te s as a m at te r of

law. Afte r rev ie w, we agr ee wi th th e d is tri ctco urt’s co nc lu si onth ataward in g pr ejud gm en t i nt eres t t o Val id sawou ldha ve res ul te d i n a n i ne qu it ab le win df al l. 2 0 The di st ric t co urt d et erm in ed , andVali ds a d oe s n otap pe ar t o d is pu te , th atVali ds a po ss es se d t he adva nc es pri orto pa ym en t o n a ny of th e Nov em be r 20 07 co nt ract s be co m in g due . As su ch , Vali ds a su ffer edno de pr iv at io n o f fu nd s o f th e type tha t pr ejud gm en t i nt eres t i s d es ig ne d t o re m edy . Thu s, ev enth ou gh Flo rid a la w ge ne ral ly call s fo r th e awardof p reju dg m en t i nt eres t, “ th e la w is no t ab so lu te an d
We also find no err or in the district court’ s set-off ruling s. 2 0 37m ay

de pe ndon equi tabl e co ns id erat io ns .” Fin lay so n, 5 55 So . 2dat 1 21 3. In th is cas e, th e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly det erm in edth ataward in g p reju dg m en t i nt eres t t o Vali ds a wou ldres ul t i n awin df al l an d u se d t he equi tabl e d is cret io n a ll owe d b y Fi nl ay so n t o d en y

Vali ds a th atwin df

al l. We cann otsay tha t t he di st ric t co urt ab us edit s au th or it y

un de r Fl or id a la w.

IV. CONCLUSI ON As t o d efen da ntPSI, we fi ndth atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin co nc lu di ng PSI was in di vi du al ly liab le to Vali ds a u nd er the co nt ract s. We reve rs e an d re m an d fo r en try of jud gm en t i n d efen da ntPSI’s fav oron Vali ds a’s cl ai m s ag ai ns t PS I in di vi du al ly. As t o Val id sa ’s dam ag e cl ai m s ag ai ns t Ba riv enun de r th e Nov em be r 20 07 co nt ract s, 3 26 , 36 8, an d 4 05 , andth e fi rs t d el iv eredin st al lm en t o f co nt ract75 7, we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng s as to pre jud gm en t i nt eres t an d s et of f. As t o c on tra ct s 6 32 an d 7 57 , we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng s t ha t, as a m at te r of law, Val id saha d re as on ab le gro un ds for in se cu rit y

an d tha t Val id sa reque st edad equa te ass ur an ces . Howev er, we rev ers e th e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng th at , as am at te r of

law, d efen da ntBari ve n (i ts el f orth ro ug h i ts ag en t PS I) d idno t gi ve ad equa te ass ur an ces of p erfo rm an ce, an d re m an d t o t he di st ric t co urt fo r a tri al as t o wh ethe r Bar iv en(it se lf o r th ro ug h i ts ag en t PS I) p ro vi de d a de qu at e 38as su ran ces . Becau se th is factua l i ss ue wil l g ov ern whet he r Bar iv enan ti ci pa to ril y

br each edco nt ract s 6 32 an d 7 57 , we rev ers e th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l o f Co un ts I, II, V, andVI of B ari ve n’s co un te rcl ai m s re gard in g c on tra ct s 6 32 an d 7 57 , whi ch was ba se d o n t he di st ric t co urt’s s umm ary jud gm en t ru li ng th atBari ve n b reac he d th os e co nt ract s as a m at te r of law. W e aff irm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa ls of C ou nt s II I, IV, andVII of Bari ve n’s co un te rcl ai m s, as th os e d is m is sa ls were b as edon gro un ds ot he r th anth e ab ov e b reac h o f co nt ractfin di ng . Giv enth atwe rem an d fo r a tria l o n the ab ov e fac tu al is su es as t o c on tra ct s 63 2 a nd75 7, we al so affi rm , for pu rp os es of r etria l, the di st ric t co urt’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s o n c on se qu en ti al da m ag es an d Dr. Herc e’s te st im on y . Insh ort, i f th e d is tri ctco urt fi nd s, af te r tr ia l, tha t Ba riv enpro vi de d a de qu at e as su ran ces of p erfo rm an ce, Ba riv enwou ldno t b e li ab le to Vali ds a an d Val id sa wou ldno t b e en ti tl edto reco ve r an y da m ag es as t o c on tra ct s 6 32 an d 7 57 . The di st ric t co urt wo ul d t he n c on si de r Bar iv en ’s bre ach of c on tra ctan d b reac h o f go od fai th an d fa ir d eal in g c ou nt ercl ai m s (C ou nt s I, II , V, andVI). If, ho wev er, the di st ric t co urt fi nd s, af

te r tr ia l, tha t Ba riv enfai le d t o p ro vi de Vali ds a wit h a de qu at e as su ran ces of p erfo rm an ce, an d thu s an ti ci pa to ril y bre ach edco nt ract s 6 32 an d 75 7, Ba riv enwou ldlo se on it s co un te rcl ai m s, an d Val id sawou ldbe en ti tl edto 39reco ve r th e sa m e d am ag es th atth e d is tri ctco urt p rev io us ly awarde d fo ll owi ng

su m m ary jud gm en t. AFFIRMED I N PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

40