Opinion ID: 1179586
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jury Finding on Underdelivery

Text: Nautilus contends that the jury erred in not awarding Nautilus damages for underdelivery, as no evidence supported the jury's decision. [8] It argues that the jury should have awarded damages as calculated in defendant's exhibit WWW, because this exhibit was revised to reflect the VFDA's testimony and accounting. While Nautilus may have prepared exhibit WWW in response to numerous inaccuracies in its evidence, pointed out by a VFDA witness at trial, that does not compel the conclusion that exhibit WWW is VFDA's own assessment of the damages Nautilus was due. The issue of damages remained contested in its entirety throughout the trial. The jury heard conflicting testimony regarding Nautilus's anticipated profits and the price Nautilus would have been likely to command from its customers. The alleged underdeliveries were themselves disputed, with VFDA claiming that Nautilus in fact had rejected the fish it offered. In short, the evidence regarding damages does not compel any one conclusion. The jury could have concluded that Nautilus's evidence of damages was speculative. We find no error in the jury's failure to award damages for underdelivery.