Vidimos, Incorporated v. Wysong Laser Company, Inc., and Wysong and Miles Company
Docket: 99-1159
Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; June 14, 1999; Federal Appellate Court
The case involves Vidimos, Inc. suing Wysong Laser Company and Wysong and Miles Company for breach of contract, with federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. Following a summary judgment favoring Wysong, the Seventh Circuit reversed the decision, leading to a trial where Vidimos was awarded $185,000 in damages and over $200,000 in prejudgment interest. Wysong appealed, challenging two key rulings from the previous opinion: the allowance of consequential damages and the applicability of Michigan law governing prejudgment interest.
The contract in question, which Wysong acknowledged as valid, stipulated that Michigan law would apply. Vidimos sought prejudgment interest as part of its damages for breach of contract, an issue governed by the contractual choice of law provision. Wysong failed to address the law of the case doctrine regarding Vidimos's entitlement to prejudgment interest in its appeal, resulting in a forfeiture of their argument against it.
The court dismissed Wysong's contention that the ruling on consequential damages was non-essential (dictum) by emphasizing that the district court's alternative ruling on the denial of consequential damages was critical to the appeal's outcome; without the potential for consequential damages, there would be no basis for the remand. Thus, the court upheld the prior determination regarding both consequential damages and the governing law for prejudgment interest, finding Wysong's challenges to be without merit.
Wysong contends that the reasoning regarding consequential damages was flawed, claiming critical evidence was overlooked and the conclusion was erroneous. However, this argument is barred by the law of the case doctrine, as it does not rely on new authority, previously undiscoverable evidence, or changed circumstances that would justify revisiting the issue. The appropriate remedy for a party believing the court erred is to seek rehearing, which Wysong failed to do. Instead, after losing on remand, Wysong waited two and a half years before presenting its reconsideration argument in a second appeal. Such a strategy is deemed inconsiderate to both the parties involved and the judiciary, especially in a case that has persisted for eight years. The court affirmed the previous decision.
