Failure to Specify Offset Value Does Not Preclude Expert’s Admissibility

Business Valuation UpdateVol. 20 No. 10
Legal and Court Case Update
October 2014

Access the Full Article

This article is available with a subscription to any of these products:
It is also available in this product:
Already a subscriber or product owner?  Login
This article is also available for purchase. (1,087 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
2086 Bottled and Canned Soft Drinks and Carbonated Waters
312111 Soft Drink Manufacturing
economic damages & lost profits
breach of contract, daubert, economic damages & lost profits, reliability, reasonable certainty, quantifiable monetary valuation
Dominion Liquid Technologies, LLC v. GT Beverage Co., LLC
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87075
June 26, 2014
US
Federal Court
Ohio
United States District Court
unknown (plaintiff); Daniel E. McMackin (defendants)
Litkovitz

Summary

In contract dispute, court finds defendant expert’s testimony regarding offset value of new equipment plaintiff installed in reliance on contract is relevant under Daubert even though expert fails to state precise monetary benefit to plaintiff.

See Also

Dominion Liquid Technologies, LLC v. GT Beverage Co., LLC

Full Text of Court Cases
June 26, 2014

In contract dispute, court finds defendant expert’s testimony regarding offset value of new equipment plaintiff installed in reliance on contract is relevant under Daubert even though expert fails to state precise monetary benefit to plaintiff.

This article also appears in:
Business Valuation UpdateVol. 20 No. 10
The Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages, Seventh Edition