Buckley v. De Jong
In this breach of contract case, we reverse the $2.8 million verdict entered in favor of the plaintiff. The record demonstrates that jurors, who believed the plaintiff was not entitled to any damages, compromised their view of the evidence in order to reach a verdict rather than because they agreed the plaintiff established the right to a substantial recovery. Our conclusion is based on the responses the trial court gave the jury to questions they had during the course of deliberation, affidavits of jurors with respect to what took place during deliberation, and the fact that the amount awarded was substantially less than the principal damages theory advanced by the plaintiff at trial.
We note the plaintiff's theories of both liability and damages were based in substantial part on his contention that the defendant failed to properly compensate him for sums he claimed were due on an earlier agreement, which itself was contingent on the outcome of contracting decisions made by the governing boards of local municipalities. Arguably, these theories of liability and damages are barred by public policy. Because this defense was not raised below and because there may be circumstances which relieve plaintiff from it in whole or in part, we decline to resolve this issue at this juncture. Rather, on remand, the defendant may raise public policy as a defense to the plaintiff's claims, and the plaintiff may fully contest the validity and application of the defense.
Comments on Buckley v. De Jong