999, a corporation, Plaintiff/Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. C.I.T. CORPORATION, a corporation, Defendant/Appellant/Cross-Appellee, 776 F.2d 866

Summary

Plaintiff borrower sought financing from defendant lender in order to purchase another business and meet guarantees to the other business' creditors. Defendant furnished a letter regarding proposed financing, but later added a term that required excessive late payment penalties, so that plaintiffs went elsewhere but could not close the purchase in time to avoid losses. The district court entered a remitted judgment on a jury verdict based on contract and disallowed as duplicative a verdict based on tort. On defendant's appeal, the court affirmed and held that the district court properly excluded evidence inconsistent with an admission under Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 because defendant had not moved to withdraw the admission until mid-trial. The court held that the jury had been properly instructed and that it was for the jury to determine what damages were foreseeable and whether mitigation applied. The court also found that there was sufficient evidence of oppression and misrepresentation to ...