Opinion ID: 2427974
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: application of law to the evidence

Text: Of course, Burnette's opinions are hypothetical and somewhat speculativehe didn't expect Formosa to commit fraud when he bid the job and won the contract for Presidio. [1] Moreover, as we have recognized, by their nature, lost profits are more or less conjectural or speculative. Pace Corp., 284 S.W.2d at 348. Indeed, just over three years ago, this Court reaffirmed the rule that the reasonable certainty requirement for proof of lost profits is intended to be flexible enough to accommodate the myriad circumstances in which claims of lost profits arise. Texas Instruments, 877 S.W.2d at 279. Here, Burnette's hypothetical calculation or speculation, as the Court calls it, was not remote or based on the mere hope of success or some untried enterprise. Texas Instruments, 877 S.W.2d at 279-80. Instead, Burnette based his calculation on Presidio's contract with Formosa, the contract's built in profit margin, and Presidio's actual cost to complete the contract given Formosa's fraudulent conduct. Burnette's calculation was objective and complete. See Szczepanik, 883 S.W.2d at 649. Presidio presented at least the minimum evidence to establish lost profits with reasonable certainty. See Szczepanik, 883 S.W.2d at 649. Accordingly, there is legally sufficient evidence to support the judgment for Presidio. The Court can only find otherwise by conducting a Constitutionally prohibited factual sufficiency review of Presidio's evidence. III. CONCLUSION To hold as the Court does today, allows Formosa, a proven fraud feasor, to escape liability [2] simply because Presidio cannot prove a perfect measure of damages. See Southwest Battery, 115 S.W.2d at 1099. Besides improperly weighing in on the facts and crunching the numbers to determine the proper calculation of damages, the Court also ignores its rule against sanctioning any one method for determining lost profits. See Holt Atherton, 835 S.W.2d at 85. An injured party, like Presidio, must not be deprived of [its] remedy because of the difficulties lying in the way of proving [loss profits]. Pace Corp., 284 S.W.2d at 348. Because Presidio provided some evidence, based on an objective and complete calculation with reasonable certainty, I would affirm the court of appeals' judgment for Presidio.