This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P bought a pneumatic cement pumping system from D. The system failed to perform as warranted by D and P sued for damages for future lost profits. P claimed that had the original machine been as warranted, then P would have purchased four more machines and engaged in extensive containerized cargo business using those machines. P testified that it lost $24+ million because the defect in the first system prevented P from going into a new business in which 4 other systems would have been necessarily purchased and, with them, the profits would surely have flowed. P even presented expert evidence from an outside economist with a Ph.D. projecting future revenues, profits, and economic probabilities for the anticipated success of a prospective new business venture. The lost profits that P claims were to purportedly have resulted from the operation of 4 additional systems, which the buyer says it would have purchased sometime in the future if the one system sold under the contract in a suit had performed as warranted. There was not even a proposed contract for the future purchase of these 4 additional systems, and no discussion between P and D as to possible terms. The jury found D liable and awarded the damages based on the lost profits. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.