Court Opinion

ID: 9465136
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 00:36:49.099333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:59.603423
License: Public Domain

BRIGHT, Circuit Judge,
dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority that an award of $9,000 for the period July 1974-June 1975 is reasonably supported by the record. The court’s award for'the subsequent years, however, has no evidentiary support and is based upon mere speculation.
As the majority notes, damages are often incapable of precise calculation and, in order to be recoverable, need not be established with absolute certainty. See 11 S. Williston, Contracts 11345 at 231-238 (W. Jeager ed. 1968). The law requires, however, that plaintiff offer sufficient evidence from which damages can reasonably be approximated.
After a review of the record in this case, I find no evidentiary support for the district court’s calculation of damages after the July 1974-June 1975 period. The court, taking into account its own findings, appears merely to have speculated in computing damages for the periods following the first year of the breach. The majority holds that the $27,500 awarded by the district court is not unreasonable as a matter of law. In my view, without any evidence from which to calculate damages, we cannot say what a reasonable award might have been. Thus, any award is based upon speculation.
I would direct the District Court to grant a remittitur for the damages awarded in excess of $9,000 or, in the alternative, a new trial, at its discretion.
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.