Opinion ID: 2561825
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Whether the district court erred as a matter of law when it denied Three Way's motion to affirm the jury's verdict?

Text: [¶21] Three Way's motion to affirm the jury's verdict relied upon numerous Wyoming cases, citing the near sanctity of a jury's decision: Knowles v. Corkill , 2002 WY 119, ¶ 21, 51 P.3d 859, 865 (Wyo. 2002) (great deference given to a jury verdict); Francis v. Pountney , 972 P.2d 143, 146 (Wyo. 1999) (juries have great discretion in determining amount of damages to be awarded); John Q. Hammons, Inc. v. Poletis , 954 P.2d 1353, 1358 (Wyo. 1998) (where law provides no measure for quantifying damages, amount to be awarded within jury's discretion); Inter-Mountain Threading, Inc. v. Baker Hughes Tubular Servs., Inc. , 812 P.2d 555, 558-59 (Wyo. 1991) (judgment notwithstanding jury verdict should be sparingly granted); Medlock v. Merrick , 786 P.2d 881, 884 (Wyo. 1990) (jury verdict based upon sufficient evidence not to be overturned merely because appellate court would have concluded differently); Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Admiral Beverage Corp. , 638 P.2d 1272, 1275 (Wyo. 1982) (where more than one inference can be made from the evidence, the jury's choice is conclusive if supported by substantial evidence). [¶22] While this recitation of the law is correct, we must agree with Burton that it does not control the result in the present case. This jury did not determine the amount of damages to be awarded to Three Way. Rather, the jury determined the monetary value of Three Way's services. The district court was faced with a decision whether to award contract damages or, alternatively, to award damages for the value of Three Way's services under the equitable theory of unjust enrichment. The jury merely was asked to determine the value of those services in case the district court pursued that latter course. It did not. Instead, it ordered specific performance of the contract. Consequently, there was no monetary jury verdict to affirm, and the district court did not err as a matter of law in that regard. This issue was, in reality, a plea for the district court to apply the doctrine of unjust enrichment, rather than to enforce the contract. Generally speaking, however, equitable remedies such as unjust enrichment are not available when an express contract exists. Sowerwine v. Keith , 997 P.2d 1018, 1021 (Wyo. 2000). [3] In the instant case, the evidence revealed a fully integrated unambiguous contract, and that is what the district court rightly enforced.