Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp.

543 F.3d 987 (8th Cir. 2008)

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

D manufactures and sells carbon fiber. P manufactures prepreg, a common substitute for fiberglass. D promised to manufacture and sell to P all of P's requirements between November 6, 2000, and December 31, 2010. P promised to 'obtain their total requirements for suitable quality, in the reasonable opinion of P, Carbon Fibers from D,' the volume not to exceed 'the amount actually purchased by P in the preceding Contract Year plus one million (1,000,000) pounds.' 'Large Filament Count,' or large-tow carbon fiber, contains 48,000 or more filaments per bundle. 'Small-tow' carbon fiber, by contrast, contains fewer than 48,000 filaments per bundle, commonly 24,000 or fewer filaments per bundle. Small-tow is more expensive to produce but superior in quality. The purpose of the agreement was to develop a new market for large-tow fiber as a less expensive alternative to small-tow fiber in the wind-energy industry. The dispute, in this case, centers on two orders that P placed with D in 2005 and 2006 that were never filled. P ordered 1,480,138 pounds of Panex 35 in 2005 and claims that it was entitled to 2,480,138 pounds of Panex 35 in 2006. P sued D for breach of contract alleging lost profits. A jury awarded P lost profits under both counts through December 31, 2006, but declined to award P future lost profits. The district court vacated the award under Count II as duplicative, giving P a final sum of $ 21,138,518. D filed motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) for a new trial, and under Rule 50(b) for judgment as a matter of law, in connection with both the liability and damages phases of the proceedings, and the district court denied both motions. D appeals the district court's denial of those motions. P cross-appeals the district court's vacation of the jury's award under Count II of the complaint. D sought to claim that the Supply Agreement was void for lack of mutuality of obligation.