United States Tenth Circuit

In a dispute arising from Sprint's breach of contract with its former bill collector, a judgment awarding the collector in excess of $17 million is affirmed where: 1) there was no evidence that the parties' definition of the term "consequential damages" was designed to embrace, and thus foreclose an award of, profits lost as a direct result of Sprint's breach; 2) the plain and unambiguous language of the agreement obliged the collector to provide Sprint with a fixed amount of available labor capacity, and required Sprint to pay for that capacity, whether utilized or not; and 3) there was no clear error in a finding that the collector managed to avoid a modicum of the losses that Sprint's breach imposed.

Appellate Information

• Decided 08/24/2007
• Published 08/27/2007

Judges

• GORSUCH, Circuit Judge., Before KELLY, BALDOCK, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Tenth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Russell S. Jones, Jr. (Richard M. Paul, III, with him on the briefs), Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, P.C., Kansas City, MO, for Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee., Richard P. McElroy, McElroy & Associates, LLP, Media, Pennsylvania (Sheila E. Branyan and Jason W. Norris, Blank Rome LLP, Philadelphia, PA, with him on the briefs), for Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.