Robertson v. Ceola - 255 Ark. 703, 501 S.W.2d 764 (1973)

Rule:

The proof of lost profits must be shown by evidence which makes it "reasonably certain" what the plaintiff would have made. The plaintiff must produce a reasonably complete set of figures, and not leave the jury to speculate as to whether there would have been any profits. The proof must be sufficient to remove the question of profits from the realm of speculation and conjecture. The value of appellee's own services in completing the contract is a necessary element in computing the cost of performance.

Facts:

Appellee contractor orally agreed to install tile at the appellant homeowner’s house. The parties agreed to a cost-plus contract, where the contractor's profit would be 15 percent of the materials' cost plus any profit on the labor cost. The contractor and an assistant were to lay the tile. For the alleged breach of the oral contract, the contractor sued the homeowner. A jury verdict in favor of the contractor was entered. The homeowner sought review of the judgment, arguing, among others, that the contractor did not sufficiently prove his damages or loss of potential profits with reasonable certainty. 

Issue:

Did the contractor sufficiently prove his damages or loss of potential profits with reasonable certainty? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court noted that the proof of lost profits must be shown by evidence which would make it reasonably certain what the plaintiff would have made. The plaintiff must produce a reasonably complete set of figures, and not leave the jury to speculate as to whether there would have been any profits. The proof must be sufficient to remove the question of profits from the realm of speculation and conjecture. The value of appellee’s own services in completing the contract was a necessary element in computing the cost of performance. In the case at bar, the defect in appellee's proof was his failure to offer evidence as to the value of his own services in the performance of the construction contract. Appellee was to be the tile setter and there was no testimony as to what his hourly wage was worth. Without that figure, damages were speculative. Accordingly, the court reversed the trial court's entry of judgment on a jury verdict in favor of the homeowner and remanded the contractor's action for breach of an oral contract for a new trial.