Court Opinion

ID: 9814805
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 00:09:01.115672+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:44:49.569315
License: Public Domain

MERRITT, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the Court’s disposition of this case. In a breach-of-contract suit, the question of liability naturally comes before the question of damages. This case got off track, however, when the defendant submitted a summary judgment motion asking for a favorable measure of damages in the event that he was found liable for breach. The district court confused matters further by stating at one place in its order that the defendant’s motion would be denied and at another place that defendant’s motion would be granted. Compare R. 64-1, Memorandum at 2, with R. 64-1, Memorandum at 14.
The bottom line is that the district court’s disposition of the case was premature. The record shows that there is a factual dispute over whether the plaintiff transferred faulty equipment to the defendant. The district court failed to acknowledge this dispute or to address whether it is material to the question of breach. If the district court is going to dispose of the case on summary judgment, it must discuss the facts and reach conclusions on the breach before it addresses damages.