United States Naval Institute v. Charter Communications, Inc.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| United States Naval Institute v. Charter Communications, Inc. | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit |
| Full case name | United States Naval Institute v. Charter Communications, Inc., and Berkley Publishing Group |
| Argued | January 7, 1991 |
| Decided | June 18, 1991 |
| Citation | 936 F.2d 692 |
| Case history | |
| Prior history | 875 F.2d 1044 (2d Cir. 1989) |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Amalya Lyle Kearse, Ralph K. Winter Jr., Frank Altimari |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kearse, joined by a unanimous court |
| Contract law |
|---|
 |
| Formation |
| Defences |
| Interpretation |
| Dispute resolution |
| Rights of third parties |
| Breach of contract |
| Remedies |
| Quasi-contractual obligations |
| Duties of parties |
|
| Related areas of law |
| By jurisdiction |
|
| Other law areas |
| Notes |
|
United States Naval Institute v. Charter Communications, Inc. is a notable contract case for discussing the extent and purpose of awarding damages in a breach of contract.
United States Naval Institute ("Naval") sued Charter Communication and Berkley Publishing Group ("Berkley") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for breach of an agreement concerning the publication of the paperback edition of The Hunt For Red October. Naval entered into a licensing agreement with Berkley granting Berkley the exclusive license to publish a paperback edition of The Hunt for Red October. The agreement stated that the paperback book could not be published sooner than October 1985. Consequently, Berkley shipped the paperback book to retail stores early, resulting in paperback sales beginning on September 15, 1985.[1]
Upon learning of these sales, Naval commenced an action against Berkley. After the action was dismissed and remanded on appeal, a judgment was ultimately entered in favor of Naval. The court calculated Naval's actual damages from Berkley's pre-October publication by estimating the profits Naval would have earned from hardcover sales in September, which totaled approximately $35,000. The court also awarded Naval an additional sum referenced as Berkley's profits that were attributable to the breach. These were estimated sales to customers who would not have bought the paperback but for it being available in September. The court calculated that number to be approximately $7,700. Lastly, the court awarded Naval prejudgment interest on the actual damages award, not the profits.[2]
Both parties appealed to the Second Circuit. Naval primarily challenged the damages received from the District Court. Naval argued that the judgment should include all of Berkley's profits from Berkley's pre-October sales totaling $724,300 as well as prejudgment interest on the profits and attorney's fees. Berkley, on the other hand, challenged Naval's recovery completely.[3]