Court Opinion

ID: 9668003
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:00:13.92349+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:42.312047
License: Public Domain

GRIMM, Judge,
concurring in part and dubious in part.
I concur with the majority that the trial court did not err in granting defendant’s motion for new trial on the issue of damages. Also, I concur with the majority that the trial *574court did not err in granting defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on plaintiffs promissory estoppel count.
However, I am dubious concerning the majority’s opinion that the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on plaintiffs breach of contract claim. I question whether plaintiffs circumstantial evidence established his desired inference that BCMO violated its contract not to divulge information about him with “such certainty as to cause it to be more reasonable and probable of the conclusions to be drawn.” See Vaughan v. Taft Broadcasting Co., 708 S.W.2d 656, 661 (Mo. banc 1986).