Opinion ID: 773182
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Nebraska Beef's Counterclaim.

Text: 19 Nebraska Beef filed a counterclaim for damages it incurred as a result of ABC's alleged breaches of the subcontract. At the close of all the evidence, the district court granted ABC judgment as a matter of law on this counterclaim because there was no contract between ABC and Nebraska Beef. On appeal, Nebraska Beef does not challenge this ruling but argues that it should have been permitted to present its counterclaim evidence as an equitable offset to ABC's quantum meruit and promissory estoppel claims. More specifically, Nebraska Beef objects to the district court's exclusion of evidence reflecting amounts paid to other electrical subcontractors after ABC was removed from the project. This issue was not properly preserved. 20 At trial, Nebraska Beef did not offer this evidence for the purpose of limiting the amount ABC should recover on its quantum meruit theory. It was only offered as evidence of Nebraska Beef's damages on a breach-of-contract counterclaim that failed as a matter of law because no contract was proved. The district court charged the jury that ABC could recover under quantum meruit if it would be inequitable and unconscionable to permit [Nebraska Beef] to avoid payment. The court did not preclude Nebraska Beef from offering evidence and arguing to the jury regarding what inequitable and unconscionable should mean in this context. The court properly dismissed the breach-of-contract counterclaim and excluded as irrelevant evidence offered solely to quantify that counterclaim. 21