Opinion ID: 3011059
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Cooper's Loss of Complementary Lines

Text: Cooper also contends its damages should have included the value of what it calls complementary lines, that is, product lines carried by Cooper for the sole purpose of complementing its Amana products. The complementary lines consisted primarily of Hardwick, In-Sink-Erator, and Dacor products. Cooper alleges that when it lost the Amana franchise, its ability to sell these products at a profit was destroyed. We do not believe this issue warrants a new trial. Westfield specifically instructs that the value of assets retained by the franchisee is to be deducted from the damages award. See 432 A.2d at 57. It may be true that Cooper would not have purchased the complementary lines if it did not also sell Amana products. But that fact does not have any legal significance. Cooper acknowledges that it was not required to purchase the additional lines, only encouraged to do so by Amana. The complementary lines fall squarely within the category of assets retained by the franchisee under Westfield, and the District Court properly excluded their value from the damages calculation.