Opinion ID: 795373
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Evidence of Amortization Agreement

Text: 49 Jay requested judgment as a matter of law on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of an amortization agreement, and the district court denied this motion. The district court explained that [e]ntering judgment as a matter of law following the close of the proofs in favor of JCI would have been erroneous in light of the record; clearly, these issues were for the trier of fact. 1 J.A. at 365 (Dist. Ct. Mem. & Order at 13). This determination is supported by Gage Products Co. v. Henkel Corp., 393 F.3d 629, 642 (6th Cir.2004), in which we held that the issue of whether the parties had formed a contract should have been submitted to the trier of fact. We affirm the denial of Jay's motion for judgment as a matter of law on this basis. 50