Opinion ID: 2604741
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Instructions on Measure of Damages

Text: MEG argued at trial for an instruction that NTC's damages should be reduced by an amount equal to all costs avoided by and additional profits received by NTC as a result of NTC producing export timber in 1980, rather than MEG producing it in 1979. This instruction was not given. Instead, the jury was told in Instruction No. 23: (2) The difference in costs as reflected in any profit on the timber earned by NTC is a minus, and therefore, you should not reduce the damages against MEG by any profits. In order to ensure that NTC receives the benefit of its bargain, it is entitled to the difference in profits which it would have had if the contract had been performed as the parties agreed. In this case, that difference is reflected by the difference in costs to NTC for the timber it sold. Part (2) of Instruction No. 23, although somewhat unclear, apparently indicates the court's belief that NTC made less profit in 1980 than it did in 1979, and therefore the jury should not reduce the damages, as measured solely by differences in costs, by any additional 1980 profits. The court stated as much when it considered counsels' objections to the proposed jury instructions: THE COURT: My understanding is that NTC made less money in 1980 than it would have made if the contract had been performed in 1979. This understanding depends on a number of assumptions, one of which was apparently that the logging of domestic timber was an effort to minimize losses. Out of the presence of the jury, the court observed that the sale of domestic logs and the Forest Service transaction were an effort to cut losses, and they've got to be included in, too. They may have added to it, but it was a bona fide effort to reduce unit costs. If the sale of domestic logs is not considered an effort to minimize losses, then NTC's own exhibit shows that the net profit from the sale of export logs alone was greater in 1980 than it was in 1979. ( See note 5 supra ). Thus, although Instruction No. 26 appeared to leave the mitigation question up to the jury, the assumptions made in Instruction No. 23 removed the issue from their consideration. Instruction No. 23 forced the jury to evaluate damages based on the cost differential between 1979 and 1980, and forced them to assume that domestic timber was logged in an effort to minimize losses. Since the determination of whether mitigation is reasonable or not is normally an issue of fact for the jury to decide, West v. Whitney-Fadalgo Seafoods, Inc., 628 P.2d at 18, this instruction usurped the jury's fact-finding authority and is error.