C.I.C. Corporation v. Ragtime, Inc.
New Jersey Court of Appeals
726 A.2d 316 (1999)
Facts
C.I.C. Corporation (CIC) (plaintiff), a vending-machine company, placed four vending machines on the premises of Ragtime, Inc. (Ragtime) (defendant), a bar owned by Donald Tabatneck (defendant). The parties agreed to a five-year lease of the machines, during which revenue would be shared between CIC and Tabatneck. After a payment dispute, CIC removed the vending machines from Ragtime’s premises. CIC then brought suit against Ragtime and Tabatneck, seeking to recover $41,000, constituting the total loss of CIC’s revenue for the four vending machines during the 59-month period that remained on the lease when Ragtime breached. Ragtime contended that CIC had failed to mitigate damages and thus was not entitled to the damages. CIC argued that it had no mitigation duty under the circumstances. The trial judge’s jury instructions directed the jury that in determining an appropriate damages award, the jury could consider what CIC should have done to mitigate damages. The jury awarded $1 in damages. CIC moved for a new trial on damages. The trial court denied the motion, and CIC appealed both the jury award and the denial of the motion for a new trial.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pressler, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 710,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
