Opinion ID: 6515
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Geographic Limits and Damages

Text: 19 When queried by Choina, Du Pont responded that his exclusive contract extended only to the United States. The district court ruled on this geographic limitation--as we have ruled on the cutter restriction--that du Pont was unjustified in insisting on such a limitation and in so doing breached the contract. Du Pont does not contest that ruling on appeal. Additionally, however, the court ruled that du Pont was not liable for damages, concluding that the expert testimony on damages adduced by Choina was inadmissible for lack of a proper foundation, and that Choina had failed to introduce any other legally sufficient evidence of damages resulting from du Pont's improper geographic restriction of Choina's rights. 20 In the exercise of its discretion a district court may exclude expert testimony that lacks an adequate foundation. 13 Here, the report of the expert, Dr. Elstrott, flatly states that he did no research on foreign markets: 21 Addressed in this valuation were the domestic market segments outlined in Section IV. Several markets were not addressed in this report, among them is the international fire-resistant apparel market. Because of the limited amount of information available, no itemized market information could be presented in a reliable fashion. And so, to maintain this report's conservative posture, it was decided that only the domestic market should be addressed. 22 At deposition, Dr. Elstrott reiterated that he had only analyzed the domestic market. We cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in concluding that Dr. Elstrott lacked a proper foundation from which to testify on foreign markets. 23 Neither did the district court err in concluding that Choina's other evidence of damages arising from the improperly imposed geographic limitation was legally insufficient. Louisiana law is well-settled that lost profits must be proven with reasonable certainty and cannot be based on conjecture and speculation. 14 Here, the only evidence Choina offered regarding damages was that he communicated with one party in Japan--who inquired inter alia about the nature of the product and about Choina's exclusive rights--and that he sent a letter to another party in Australia, who never responded. Choina acknowledged that both of these solicitations were cold calls and that he never followed up to ascertain why they did not result in sales. Of course, such evidence could suggest many things, ranging from lack of interest in the Spunlaced product to an aversion to dealing with unknown distributors. Only speculation or conjecture could tie such evidence of lack of foreign sales to du Pont's efforts to limit Choina's exclusive rights to this country. Thus, as the district court correctly concluded, this evidence was legally insufficient to create a fact issue for the jury. 15