STRUCTURAL POLYMER GROUP, LTD. V. ZOLTEK CORP.
543 F.3d 987 (8th Cir. 2008)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Structural (P) appealed a reduction in a jury award for lost profits
and Zoltek (D) appealed its denial of a new trial and motion for judgment as a matter of law.
FACTS: D manufactures and sells carbon fiber. P manufactures prepreg, a common substitute
for fiberglass. D promised to manufacture and sell to P all of P's requirements between
November 6, 2000, and December 31, 2010. P promised to 'obtain their total requirements for
suitable quality, in the reasonable opinion of P, Carbon Fibers from D,' the volume not to
exceed 'the amount actually purchased by P in the preceding Contract Year plus one million
(1,000,000) pounds.' 'Large Filament Count,' or large-tow carbon fiber, contains 48,000 or
more filaments per bundle. 'Small-tow' carbon fiber, by contrast, contains fewer than 48,000
filaments per bundle, commonly 24,000 or fewer filaments per bundle. Small-tow is more
expensive to produce, but superior in quality. The purpose of the agreement was to develop a
new market for large-tow fiber as a less expensive alternative to small-tow fiber in the
wind-energy industry. The dispute in this case centers on two orders that P placed with D in
2005 and 2006 that were never filled. P ordered 1,480,138 pounds of Panex 35 in 2005, and
claims that it was entitled to 2,480,138 pounds of Panex 35 in 2006. P sued D for breach of
contract alleging lost profits. A jury awarded P lost profits under both counts through
December 31, 2006, but declined to award P future lost profits. The district court vacated
the award under Count II as duplicative, giving P a final sum of $ 21,138,518. D filed
motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) for a new trial, and under Rule 50(b)
for judgment as a matter of law, in connection with both the liability and damages phases of
the proceedings, and the district court denied both motions. D appeals the district court's
denial of those motions. P cross-appeals the district court's vacation of the jury's award
under Count II of the complaint. D sought to claim that the Supply Agreement was void for
lack of mutuality of obligation.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment