Generally, summary judgment is inappropriate on the issue of damages because a party has a right to present evidence of its damages, however doubtful they may appear on the pleadings. See Benson Coop. Creamery Ass'n v. First Dist. But Tandem's claim of prejudice is not convincing because it had already presented all its evidence and had rested its case before the sudden illness of A.B.S.'s officer brought the trial to a halt. The district court's grant of summary judgment after Tandem's presentation of its entire case was comparable to a directed verdict in favor of A.B.S. on the issue of Tandem's lost profits.
Consequential damages are fully recoverable for breach of warranty.
The general rule in Minnesota is that damages in the form of lost profits may be recovered when they are shown to be the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of and their amount is shown with a reasonable degree of certainty and exactness. But to be recoverable, damages must not be speculative, remote, or conjectural. Proof of future loss must be established by a preponderance of evidence. In Cardinal , the appellants demonstrated they were experienced in their industry, their market was fertile, and other actors in the same market in the same geographic area realized profits. The evidence supported an inference that, but for the respondent's actions, the appellants would have realized a profit.