(appeal of a jury verdict in favor of the purchaser in competing breach of contract claims concerning melon production; jury determined neither party fully performed their obligations under the contract, but that growers unfairly interfered with the purchaser’s rights and awarded damages to purchaser; on appeal, growers contend the claim cannot stand in the absence of a finding of a breach of contract, which they argue the jury did not find; court held that under verdict form, jury was never asked to reach question of whether a breach occurred because jury held neither party fully performed their obligations under the contract, so growers’ argument failed; court also held that jury’s award of damages was not dependent on a specified quantity to be grown in the contract, but was based on damages of reasonable expectations of the crop; court also held that sufficient evidence presented to award damages; judgment affirmed).
CALT does not provide legal advice. Any information provided on this website is not intended to be a substitute for legal services from a competent professional. CALT's work is supported by fee-based seminars and generous private gifts. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in the material contained on this website do not necessarily reflect the views of Iowa State University.