Kreg Therapeutics, Inc. v. VitalGo, Inc.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, alleging that defendant breached contract that gave plaintiff exclusive distribution rights to sell defendant’s medical bed as long as plaintiff submitted minimum number of orders for said bed. Defendant failed to file response to plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, which otherwise indicated that plaintiff had submitted requisite number of orders to retain instant exclusivity rights. Moreover, Dist. Ct. did not err in granting plaintiff’s motion to amend its complaint to add damages claim, even though said motion was filed after plaintiff had obtained instant summary judgment order. Record supported finding that defendant could have foreseen plaintiff’s consequential damages caused by instant breach, where plaintiff’s representative made clear during contract negotiations that plaintiff needed exclusivity rights to make agreement worthwhile and to allow plaintiff to develop customer base. Also, Dist. Ct. could properly calculate damages by estimating fair market value for agreement at time of breach and then reducing expected profits by 10.08 percent to account for market risk and uncertainty.