Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintiffdefendantdamagesappealtrialverdicttestimonywill
lawsuitplaintiffdamagesappealtrialverdicttestimonywill

Related Cases

Draper v. Airco, Inc., 580 F.2d 91
View Case »
Hueper v. Goodrich, 314 N.W.2d 828
View Case »
Kaczkowski v. Bolubasz, 491 Pa. 561, 421 A.2d 1027, 21 A.L.R.4th 1
View Case »
U.S. v. National Exch. Bank, 53 F. 9, 3 C.C.A. 390
View Case »
Sedmak v. Charlie’s Chevrolet, Inc., 622 S.W.2d 694, 26 A.L.R.4th 284, 31 UCC Rep.Serv. 851
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Lewis River Golf, Inc. v. O.M. Scott & Sons, 120 Wash.2d 712, 845 P.2d 987, 22 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 510

Facts

Lewis River Golf, Inc. purchased grass seeds from O.M. Scott & Sons under an express warranty. The sod produced from the seeds contained weeds, resulting in the loss of most of its commercial customers and lawsuits from dissatisfied buyers. The plaintiff cut its production significantly and ultimately sold its sod business, claiming damages including lost profits and a loss in business value due to reputational damage from the defective seeds. A jury initially awarded $1,327,000 in damages, but the Court of Appeals later reversed part of this award, leading to a retrial focused solely on damages.

Lewis River Golf, Inc. purchased grass seeds from O.M. Scott & Sons under an express warranty. The sod produced from the seeds contained weeds, resulting in the loss of most of its commercial customers and lawsuits from dissatisfied buyers.

Issue

The main issue was whether the testimony of the plaintiff's damage expert should have been stricken as speculative. Secondary issues included whether the retrial violated the mandate regarding recoverable damages and whether the defendant preserved other issues for appeal.

The main issue was whether the testimony of the plaintiff's damage expert should have been stricken as speculative.

Rule

Recovery of consequential damages is authorized by the Uniform Commercial Code, which allows for damages related to injury to a buyer's business reputation and goodwill as compensable losses.

Recovery of consequential damages is authorized by the Uniform Commercial Code, which allows for damages related to injury to a buyer's business reputation and goodwill as compensable losses.

Analysis

The court determined that the expert's testimony was not too speculative to be admissible, as it was based on reasonable assumptions and supported by evidence. The expert's calculations regarding the loss in value of the business were deemed appropriate, and the jury was instructed on the proper elements of damages. The court emphasized that the fact of damage was established, and the uncertainty regarding the amount of damages did not preclude recovery.

The court determined that the expert's testimony was not too speculative to be admissible, as it was based on reasonable assumptions and supported by evidence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision to vacate part of the jury verdicts and affirmed the trial court's judgment in its entirety, allowing the buyer to recover damages for the loss in value of its business due to reputational harm.

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision to vacate part of the jury verdicts and affirmed the trial court's judgment in its entirety.

Who won?

Lewis River Golf, Inc. prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the jury's award for damages related to the loss of business value and reputation, finding that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the claims.

Lewis River Golf, Inc. prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the jury's award for damages related to the loss of business value and reputation.

You must be