Halliburton Company v. Eastern Cement Corporation

672 So. 2d 844 (1996)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P bought a pneumatic cement pumping system from D. The system failed to perform as warranted by D and P sued for damages for future lost profits. P claimed that had the original machine been as warranted, then P would have purchased four more machines and engaged in extensive containerized cargo business using those machines. P testified that it lost $24+ million because the defect in the first system prevented P from going into a new business in which 4 other systems would have been necessarily purchased and, with them, the profits would surely have flowed. P even presented expert evidence from an outside economist with a Ph.D. projecting future revenues, profits, and economic probabilities for the anticipated success of a prospective new business venture. The lost profits that P claims were to purportedly have resulted from the operation of 4 additional systems, which the buyer says it would have purchased sometime in the future if the one system sold under the contract in a suit had performed as warranted. There was not even a proposed contract for the future purchase of these 4 additional systems, and no discussion between P and D as to possible terms. The jury found D liable and awarded the damages based on the lost profits. D appealed.