Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
March 14, 1996, Submitted ; June 3, 1996, Filed
[*345] WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.
In this diversity action for damages pursuant to an oral contract, Hardrives, Inc. (Hardrives) appeals the district court's 1 evidentiary rulings and denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law (JAML), or in the alternative for a new trial or remittitur of the jury award in favor of plaintiff Triton Corporation (Triton). We affirm.
The City of Jamestown, North Dakota, annually invites bids to repair and repave its city streets. Triton attempted to submit a bid for the project in 1991 but was unable to obtain the required performance bond. Jerry Szarkowski, vice president of Triton, contacted Nick Zwilling, vice president of Hardrives, with a proposal under which Triton would prepare a bid for the project and Hardrives would formally submit the bid to the city. If the city accepted the bid, Hardrives would subcontract the work to Triton and pay Triton 90% of the contract price. Hardrives would be paid 10% for obtaining the performance bond for the project.
On May 6, 1991, Zwilling met with Szarkowski at Szarkowski's home regarding the arrangement, and Szarkowski submitted the bid with Zwilling's signature to the city that same evening. The Hardrives bid was the low bid, and the city awarded Hardrives the contract. Zwilling and Szarkowski attended the preconstruction conference together, and Zwilling told city engineering staff that Triton would be Hardrives' representative at the site. In early June, Zwilling informed Szarkowski that Triton could perform the street repair work only if Triton obtained [**3] a performance bond. When Triton was unable to do so, Hardrives subcontracted most of the job to a competing company.
Triton sued Hardrives for lost profits of $ 107,952.44. Upon finding that an oral contract existed between Triton and Hardrives and that Hardrives had breached the contract, the jury awarded damages of $ 62,745.00. The district court denied Hardrives' post-trial motions for JAML, new trial, and remittitur.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
85 F.3d 343 *; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 13148 **
Triton Corporation, Appellee, v. Hardrives, Inc., Appellant.
Prior History: [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. CIV A3-94-5. Honorable Karen Klein, Magistrate Judge.
bid, district court, calculation, damages, argues, costs, subcontracted, remittitur
Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Trials, Judgment as Matter of Law, General Overview, Substantial Evidence, Business & Corporate Compliance, Contract Formation, Acceptance, Contracts Law, Offers, Contracts Law, Types of Contracts, Oral Agreements, Abuse of Discretion, Evidence, Admissibility, Procedural Matters, Reversible Errors, Expert Witnesses, Types of Evidence, Testimony, Expert Witnesses, Relief From Judgments, Additur & Remittitur, Remittiturs