Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant’s motion for new trial on issue of damages with respect to jury’s verdict on defendant's counterclaim, alleging that plaintiff had repudiated its contract with defendant that resulted in defendant incurring extra expenses to have third-parties perform services at issue in instant contract, under circumstances where jury had agreed with defendant that plaintiff had wrongfully repudiated said contract, but that defendant was not entitled to any damages. Dist. Ct. can only grant defendant’s Rule 59 motion for new trial under circumstances where defendant shows that jury’s verdict constituted miscarriage of justice, and defendant failed to establish this standard, where jury could have reasonably believed that zero damages was appropriate either because defendant had failed to mitigate its damages, or because defendant could have convinced plaintiff to return its employees to job site without defendant incurring any additional expense by merely paying plaintiff what it had owed to plaintiff at time plaintiff withdrew its employees from job site. (Dissent filed)
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Contracts