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

contractbreach of contractplaintiffdefendantdamagesappealtrialverdictmotionwill

contractbreach of contractplaintiffdefendantdamagestrialverdictmotionappellant

Related Cases

Vickers v. Wichita State University, Wichita, 213 Kan. 614, 518 P.2d 512

Facts

The defendants, the Missouri Valley Conference, had a contract with television station KTVH for broadcasting basketball games, which was assigned to plaintiff Thomas M. Vickers. Vickers executed a contract for the 1967-68 season that included a right of first refusal for the 1969-70 season. However, when Vickers attempted to negotiate a new contract, he was informed that no other parties were interested, yet discussions had occurred with another broadcaster. After failing to reach an agreement, the defendants offered the rights to another party, leading Vickers to sue for damages based on loss of future profits.

The defendants, constituting the Missouri Valley Conference, initially contracted with television station KTVH, Channel 12, Wichita, Kansas, for the televising of conference basketball games.

Issue

Did the district court err in sustaining the defendants' motion for a directed verdict based on the plaintiff's inability to demonstrate a profitable operation for a sufficient period to ascertain future profits with reasonable certainty?

The limited issue now before us is whether the district court erred in sustaining defendants' motion for a directed verdict because plaintiff had not conducted a profitable operation for a sufficient period of time to ascertain with reasonable certainty loss of future profits.

Rule

Loss of profits resulting from a breach of contract may be recovered as damages when such profits are proved with reasonable certainty, and the fact that damages cannot be calculated with absolute exactness will not render them so uncertain as to preclude an assessment.

Loss of profits resulting from a breach of contract may be recovered as damages when such profits are proved with reasonable certainty, and when they may reasonably be considered to have been within the contemplation of the parties.

Analysis

The court found that the district court improperly restricted the evidence to past business experience, which limited the plaintiff's ability to demonstrate potential future profits. The court emphasized that while past profitability can be a method of proving lost future profits, it is not the only method, and the nature of the business in question—televising basketball games—was not new or untried. The court concluded that the plaintiff should have been allowed to present evidence of future profits based on the circumstances of the case.

We conclude, as did the appellant, the district court limited the evidence to a showing of past profits from which future profits might be ascertained.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision and directed a new trial, stating that the plaintiff should have the opportunity to prove his claim for loss of future profits.

The judgment is reversed with directions to grant a new trial.

Who won?

The plaintiff, Thomas M. Vickers, prevailed in the appeal because the Supreme Court found that the trial court had erred in its evidentiary rulings and in directing a verdict for the defendants.

The Supreme Court of Kansas held that the trial court erred in limiting the evidence to past profits and in directing a verdict for the defendants.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Atwood-Kellogg, Inc. v. Nickeson Farms, 602 N.W.2d 749, 40 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 196, 1999 S.D. 148

Chris v. Epstein, 113 N.C.App. 751, 440 S.E.2d 581

Wieder v. Skala, 80 N.Y.2d 628, 609 N.E.2d 105, 593 N.Y.S.2d 752, 61 USLW 2393, 8 IER Cases 132

Geysen v. Securitas Sec. Services USA, Inc., 322 Conn. 385, 142 A.3d 227, 26 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1374

Luria v. Robbins, 223 Pa.Super. 456, 302 A.2d 361