Modern sued, arguing that Ideal's purchase orders and oral requests formed contracts that Ideal breached. The district court found no contractual liability, but granted Modern some recovery on an unjust enrichment theory for certain discounts Ideal took from Modern's invoices. Ideal and Modern both appealed, and this court reversed. Ideal moved for a new trial, challenging the district court's decision not to reopen the record and the sufficiency of the evidence. The district court denied the motion.
Ideal again appeals.
Ideal complains first about the district court's refusal to reopen the record. Following our remand, the district court ordered each party to submit proposed findings of fact based on the original trial transcript and exhibits. Pointing to a ruling at the original trial cutting short one witness's testimo- ny, Ideal asked to reopen the record to take additional testimony on each purchase order. We disagree with Ideal's contention that this ruling amounted to an abuse of discretion. Not only did Ideal fail to object to the district court's ruling about Ideal's testimony, but read in context, the ruling only preclud- ed the witness from elaborating on the background of an exhaustive list of Ideal's individual defenses.