Bus. Communications, Inc. v. Banks
| Docket Number: | 2009-CT-00407-SCT Linked Case(s): 2009-CA-00407-COA ; 2009-CA-00407-COA ; 2009-CT-00407-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-21-2012 Opinion Author: Randolph, J. Holding: Court of Appeals affirmed; Circuit court affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part. |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-22-2011 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Elements of breach of contract claim - Monetary damages - Compensatory damages - Nominal damages Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Dickinson, P.J., Kitchens and Pierce, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Chandler and King, JJ. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Lamar, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part Joined By 1: Carlson, P.J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT Writ of Certiorari: yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-02-2009 Appealed from: Madison County Circuit Court Judge: William E. Chapman, III Disposition: ENTERED A JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT IN FAVOR OF ALBERT BANKS Case Number: 2006-0150 |
|
| Note: | The Court of Appeals opinion can be found at http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/CO69032.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Business Communications, Inc. |
STEPHEN J. CARMODY
CHRISTOPHER RAY FONTAN
JOHN CURTIS HALL, III |
||
| Appellee: | Albert Banks | SILAS W. MCCHAREN BRANDI S. SHAFER MATTHEW TOXEY VITART |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Contract - Elements of breach of contract claim - Monetary damages - Compensatory damages - Nominal damages |
| Summary of the Facts: | Business Communications, Inc. asserted two breach-of-contract claims against its former employee, Albert Banks – breach of BCI’s business-protection agreement, which included a noncompetition provision, and breach of BCI’s reimbursement-of-costs agreement. At trial, the jury awarded BCI $1,000 for breach of the BPA and $9,000 for breach of the RCA. Thereafter, the circuit court granted Banks’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s grant of JNOV as to the RCA, but reversed regarding the BPA, “reinstat[ing] the jury’s verdict [of $1,000], and remand[ing] this case to the trial court to consider BCI’s motion for attorney’s fees.” The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the elements of a breach-of-contract claim involving a noncompete agreement and the nature of the damages to which BCI was entitled. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Banks argues that, under Mississippi law, monetary damages are an essential element that must be proven in order to recover on a breach-of-contract claim. Whether a plaintiff has been damaged monetarily is not an element of a breach-of-contract claim. To the extent that prior cases require a plaintiff to prove monetary damages to prevail on a breach-of-contract claim, they are overruled. Monetary damages are a remedy for breach of contract, not an element of the claim. However, a plaintiff seeking monetary damages for breach of contract must put into evidence, with as much accuracy as possible, proof of the damages being sought. Without proof of actual monetary damages, a plaintiff cannot recover compensatory damages under a breach-of-contract action. In this case, there is insufficient proof in the record to sustain an award of compensatory damages to BCI for the breach of contract. Since BCI conceded at trial that it had neither suffered nor incurred actual monetary damages, the jury should not have been instructed on compensatory damages. The jury was also instructed on nominal damages. Where a suit is brought for a breach of a contract, and the evidence sustains the claim, the complainant is entitled to recover at least nominal damages for the failure of the defendant to carry out his agreement. Since the jury’s award of $1,000 is well within the continuum of legitimate nominal-damage awards, any error in instructing the jury regarding compensatory damages is harmless. On remand, the circuit court should consider only BCI’s motion for attorney’s fees. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
