Opinion ID: 4649278
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Directing Summary Judgment on Other Grounds?

Text: Looking beyond the notice issues, both sides also contend that they should prevail as a matter of law on issues the dis‐ trict court did not address. Their arguments focus on the mer‐ its of the underlying contract disputes that Damian’s clients might have raised based on the 2009 change in dating in‐ voices. We are not convinced that either side should prevail as a matter of law on the merits of those hypothetical claims for breach of contract. To highlight just two of our concerns, the underlying client contracts did not include specific language on how invoices should be dated. That silence may make it impossible to decide with one stroke whether the 2009 change did or did not breach all of those contracts. The evidence of the Sellers’ misleading script for calming any restless clients supports an inference that the Sellers knew the 2009 change was not authorized and could lead to unhappy clients and even litigation. On the other hand, the fact that no clients ever sued and that most apparently never noticed the 2009 change supports an inference that it was not a significant concern to them.3 issue. In any event, the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law would have been erroneous even if the Sellers had demonstrated some irrevocable harm because they did not show that, taking all the evidence in the light most favorable to Sterling, the Sellers had forfeited their entire case, that is, that the extent of forfeiture was complete. 3The Sellers’ brief argues that the client contracts required Damian to “render” the invoices promptly at the end of the workweek and that these provisions implicitly also required dating the invoices as of the end of the workweek. But at oral argument, the Sellers conceded that they did not 22 Nos. 19‐2300, 19‐3122, & 19‐3235 To the extent that either side relies on a course of dealing or other evidence beyond the inconclusive text of the client contracts themselves, it may be impossible to decide the mer‐ its of those hypothetical claims without a close look at Damian’s dealings with each client. That course would be a poor candidate for summary judgment, let alone an appellate decision in the first instance. See International Financial Servs. Corp. v. Chromas Technologies Canada, Inc., 356 F.3d 731, 740 (7th Cir. 2004) (refusing to direct summary judgment on issue that “depends on a host of considerations that this court is ill‐ positioned to weigh as a matter of first impression”).