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

contractlawsuitbreach of contractdamagesstatutetrialverdictcorporationcredibility
contractbreach of contractdamagesstatutetrialverdictpunitive damagesjury trialcredibility

Related Cases

United States v. Petite, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2017 WL 1352223
View Case »
Prudential Equity Group, LLC v. Ajamie, 538 F.Supp.2d 605
View Case »
Christy v. Saliterman, 288 Minn. 144, 179 N.W.2d 288
View Case »
In re Marriage of Olson, 14 Cal.App.4th 1, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 480
View Case »
People v. Jackson, 13 Cal.4th 1164, 920 P.2d 1254, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 49, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6358, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,429
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Marks v. Intergraph Corp., Inc., 740 So.2d 1066

Facts

Marks, an architect, sued Intergraph in 1993 for damages based on allegations of fraud, breach of contract, and breach of warranty regarding Intergraph's software and equipment. He claimed that the software did not perform as represented and that he suffered damages as a result. Intergraph contended that it had fully informed Marks about the developmental status of the software and that any losses were due to Marks's own actions and market changes. The case involved a dispute over whether Marks was aware of the software's discontinuation and whether he was fraudulently induced to delay his lawsuit.

Marks, an architect, sued Intergraph in 1993, seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on allegations of fraud, breach of contract, and breach of warranty in connection with his purchase and/or use of certain Intergraph computer equipment and software, including Intergraph “Engineering Modeling System” (“EMS”) software and Intergraph “Microstation” software and in connection with his agreement to purchase a developmental software 3D design system called “Master Architect.”

Issue

Whether Marks was entitled to a new trial based on the jury's verdict being against the weight of the evidence, the trial court's instruction on the statute-of-limitations defense, and the introduction of evidence regarding Marks's wealth.

Marks presents the following issues: 1) Whether Marks was entitled to a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; 2) Whether Marks was entitled to a new trial on the ground that the trial court should not have instructed the jury on the statute-of-limitations defense; and 3) Whether Marks was entitled to a new trial on the ground that Intergraph impermissibly interjected Marks's wealth as an issue in the case.

Rule

The court noted that a jury's primary function is to assess the credibility of witnesses and that evidence of a party's wealth is generally not permitted unless it is relevant to a material issue in the case.

The purpose of a jury trial is to resolve disputes in the evidence. One of a jury's primary functions is to assess the credibility of witnesses.

Analysis

The court found that the trial court properly instructed the jury on the statute-of-limitations defense, as there was a factual dispute regarding whether Marks knew or should have known about the discontinuation of the software. Additionally, the court determined that references to Marks's wealth were relevant to rebut his claims that Intergraph's actions had financially harmed him, thus allowing such evidence.

We agree with the trial court that a fact question was presented both as to whether Marks knew or should have known more than two years before he filed his complaint in 1993 that he would not be receiving the “Master Architect” software and as to whether Intergraph had fraudulently induced Marks not to file an action before the running of the statutory limitations period.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence and that the trial court did not err in its rulings.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is affirmed.

Who won?

Intergraph Corporation, Inc. prevailed in the case because the jury found in its favor, and the court upheld the jury's decision based on the evidence presented.

Intergraph took the position that it had fully informed Marks that its “Master Architect” software was in the developmental stages and that its EMS software and Microstation software were not totally suitable for his practice.

You must be