Opinion ID: 1111142
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: the lower court erred in refusing instruction # p-5 requested by appellant kaiser investments, inc., in the second trial.

Text: Linn's evidence of damages on its counterclaim consisted entirely of detailed projections of the profits it would have made had it been allowed to farm the Halstead Place in 1983. Instruction D-1A told the jury, in pertinent part, that it should consider loss of profits, if any, sustained by Linn Agriprises, Inc. for the crop year 1983... . The lower court refused Instruction P-5 for Kaiser to the effect that [y]ou are instructed that you may not consider loss of profits as an element of damages in calculating the amount of damages to be awarded to Linn Agriprises, Inc. Assigned Errors III and IV challenged the validity of anticipated loss of profits as a measure of damages under the facts of the present case. This Court has previously authorized the use of such crop projections for determination of damages. Leard v. Breland, 514 So.2d 778 (Miss. 1987); Mid-Continent Aircraft Corp. v. Whitehead, 357 So.2d 122 (Miss. 1978). These cases are distinguished from the case sub judice in that the former deal with profits lost from injury to growing crops, while the latter deals with profits lost from the anticipated harvest of crops not yet planted. Leard v. Breland, supra , cites with approval Dunn, Recovery of Damages for Lost Profits (3d ed. 1987), which states: Cases are split on whether breach of a lease of farmland will give rise to damages measured by the profits on the crop that would have been raised.... When lost profits measured by the value of a crop are held recoverable, damages may be calculated from evidence of average yields for the season on land in the vicinity or from yields on the same land in other years. Id., at § 2.28, at 135-36. Among the authorities cited by Dunn in support of use of profit projections for crops not yet planted, Nelson v. Reisner, 51 Cal.2d 161, 331 P.2d 17 (1958), states that such projections should be based upon reasonable probability. 51 Cal.2d at 171-72, 331 P.2d at 24. Similarly, L.U. Cattle Co. v. Wilson, 714 P.2d 1344, 1348 (Colo. App. 1986), requires that crop projects be reasonably ascertainable based on past experience. In Mizell v. Spires, 146 Ga. App. 330, 332, 246 S.E.2d 385, 387 (1978), the Georgia Court said: [T]he anticipated profits of an unestablished future business are generally too speculative for recovery, but where the business has been established, has made profits and there are definite, certain and reasonable data for their ascertainment, and such profits reasonably must have been in the contemplation of the parties at the time of the contract, they may be recovered at least for a limited reasonable future time, even though they cannot be computed with exact mathematical certainty. This Court has stated that damages for breach of contract must be proven with reasonable certainty and not based merely on speculation and conjecture. Leard v. Breland, supra ; Lovett v. E.L. Garner, Inc., 511 So.2d 1346 (Miss. 1987). The case sub judice is distinguished from Nichols v. Stacks, 485 So.2d 1034 (Miss. 1986), which involved recovery of the statutory penalty [(MCA § 95-5-3 (1972)] for willful destruction of trees. The Court said: When the plaintiffs offered proof that in a precisely measured area all trees thereon had been destroyed and removed, and all signs thereof obliterated by the defendant; that they were familiar with the kind and size of the trees destroyed; that in an area immediately adjacent to the obliterated area the trees were of the same kind and size; that a sufficient portion of the adjacent area containing trees in the destroyed area had been precisely measured and the trees thereon actually counted so as to determine a fair ratio or comparison with the destroyed area, they offered as much evidence as they could have under the circumstances as to the number and kind of trees destroyed. They further offered sufficient evidence upon which a monetary award could be made under the statute. Such proof is beyond pure speculation or guess.       Since, concededly, the best the plaintiffs or anyone else will be able to do under the circumstances of this case can be no more than a fair and reasonable estimate, Cain [ v. Mid-South Pump 458 So.2d 1048 (Miss. 1984)] supra, or a just and reasonable inference, Story Parchment [ Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co., 282 U.S. 555, 51 S.Ct. 248, 75 L.Ed. 544 (1931)] supra, the weight, credibility and worth of the comparative measurement or measurements and calculations upon rehearing in determining the amount of the monetary award will rest solely with the chancellor. We go no further at this time than to hold that an award in some amount under the statute is proper. 485 So.2d at 1037, 1039. In the case at bar, only the wheat had been planted by Linn at the time of the alleged breach. Linn's president testified that this wheat would have yielded a gross profit of $13,693; the successor tenant of the Halstead Place disced up this wheat because some of it wasn't too good. Linn's evidence was that if it had been allowed to plant cotton, soybeans and rice, these crops would have yielded an additional $270,839 in gross profits; one expert agreed with this projection and two disagreed. Also, one of the farmers who worked the Halstead Place after Linn was evicted testified that he lost $20,000 on his soybean crop. A final consideration is the fact that Linn's 1982 operations on the Halstead Place resulted in a $40,000 loss in the year in which other Sunflower County farms realized record crops. We are of the opinion that Linn's lost profits for its unplanted 1983 crops are not reasonably ascertainable based on past experience. L.U. Cattle Co. v. Wilson, supra . Linn had not established itself as profitable, and, as is apparent from the conflicting opinions at trial, there is in this case no definite or certain data by which profits or losses for this unplanted crop might be estimated. Mizell v. Spires, supra . We are of the opinion that this is not a proper case for proof of lost profits from an unplanted crop and that evidence of the projected 1983 harvest should have been excluded. Leard v. Breland, supra ; Lovett v. E.L. Garner, Inc., supra . It is undisputed that at the time of the alleged breach, Linn had planted some 160 acres of wheat and that the wheat had come to a stand. Thus, unlike the cotton, soybean, and rice crops for which Linn made profit projections, the wheat crop was growing at the time Linn was evicted from the Halstead Place. This Court has held that in the case of growing crops, the computation [of lost profits] should be based, although not exclusively, upon the difference between the value of the crop immediately before and just after the damage; but such a rule must be given flexibility to allow consideration of pertinent practical factors dictated by fairness and reason, including the cost of cultivation, harvesting and marketing. Mid-Continent Aircraft Corp. v. Whitehead, 357 So.2d 122 (Miss. 1978). Leard v. Breland, 514 So.2d at 782. Because Linn's 1983 wheat was a growing crop, Linn was entitled to offer proof of damages from the loss of its wheat crop in accordance with the guidelines of Leard v. Breland . We are of the opinion that the lower court erred in admitting evidence of lost profits for projected income on the unplanted cotton, soybean and rice crops, and in instructing the jury that such lost profits could be considered. Linn was entitled to show damages for loss of a growing wheat crop. Assigned Errors III, IV and V require that the judgment be reversed and remanded for further action consistent with this opinion.