Opinion ID: 6340619
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Contractual Changes

Text: Third, and finally, Syngenta argues that DeLong must have lost money as a result of insisting before October 2011 that its customers agree to a new contractual provision requiring them to assume all financial risk that DDGS shipments would be rejected by China. In support of this argument Syngenta points to an email from one of DeLong’s brokers stating that the proposed contractual provision would prevent sales of its product as the terms would “not be accepted by the customers.” Aplt. App., Vol. IX at 168. DeLong responds, however, that there is no evidence anywhere in the record, much less before October 2011, that it lost any customers or suffered any harm from the revision. It contends that the brokers were simply mistaken and their fears unfounded. It notes support in the record for the proposition that the new contract provision merely reflected the common understanding in the industry and imposed nothing new. Syngenta does not claim that there is any evidence of lost customers or reduced prices. Rather, it points to the testimony of Drew McClymont, a member of DeLong’s export sales team, who, during questioning about the consequences of this contract language, agreed that DeLong’s business had been affected by MIR 162 in September 2011. But Syngenta has not pointed to evidence of any specific effect 11 Appellate Case: 21-3044 Document: 010110684005 Date Filed: 05/13/2022 Page: 12 except that DeLong’s sales team had to field questions from customers about the contract provision. As we previously explained when discussing the protective actions taken by DeLong, however, this use of regular personnel is not the type of injury that begins the accrual of a claim. On the record now before this court, a rational jury could find that DeLong did not suffer harm related to this contract provision. Syngenta is correct that harm does not need to be monetary, but it has not identified any other harm that would start the limitations period. DeLong is seeking only monetary damages, and there appears to be no other legal interest, such as the right to file a patent, that has been lost.