# Business Communications, Inc. v. Banks

> Mississippi Supreme Court · June 21, 2012 · 90 So. 3d 1221

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4923116

## Case

- **Full name:** BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. Albert BANKS
- **Court:** Mississippi Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 21, 2012
- **Citations:** 90 So. 3d 1221; 33 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1865; 2012 Miss. LEXIS 310; 2012 WL 2345366
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Lamar
- **Judges:** Carlson, Chandler, Dickinson, King, Kitchens, Lamar, Pierce, Randolph, Waller
- **Cited by:** 102 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4923116

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that claim for compensatory damages requires proof that damages were caused by breach of contract
- explaining that “a plaintiff seeking monetary damages for breach of contract must put into evidence, with as much accuracy as possible, proof of the damages being sought”
- holding that claim for compensatory damages *377 requires proof that damages were caused by breach of contract
- holding that monetary damages are a remedy, not an element of a breach-of-contract claim

## Opinion text

LAMAR, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
¶ 18. I agree that BCI is not entitled to compensatory damages and that the jury should not have been instructed on compensatory damages, as BCI conceded it suffered no actual damages due to the breach of the BPA. I also agree that BCI is entitled to nominal damages in this case. However, I must dissent to the majority’s decision to render on the issue of nominal damages, opining that, because “the jury’s award of $1,000 is well within the continuum of legitimate nominal-damage awards, any error in instructing the jury regarding compensatory damages is harmless.” (Maj. Op. at ¶ 15). Even though the jury was correctly instructed on nominal damages, it also was instructed on compensatory damages. 9 It is not clear from the verdict form whether the jury intended the $1,000 awarded to be nominal or compensatory damages; indeed, as the majority recognizes, the circuit court assumed the jury intended to award BCI compensatory damages when it labeled the $1,000 award as “compensatory damages” in the “Judgment” entered. (Maj. Op. at ¶ 6). Therefore, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals in part as to breach of contract and reverse in part as to damages. I would remand the issue of nominal damages to the Circuit Court of Madison County, with instructions to reconsider Banks’s motion for remittitur and determine nominal damages. 10 If the circuit court determined it appropriate, it would be free to deny remittitur and enter the jury’s award of $1,000 as nominal dam *1228 ages, the result reached by the majority. However, this decision should be made by the trial court, not this Court.
CARLSON, P.J., joins this opinion.
. Jury Instruction No. 17 provided that:
You are instructed that, if you do find for the plaintiff on the issue of damages, you must confine your verdict to reasonable compensation for the injuries actually sustained, if any, by the Plaintiff as a result of Al Banks’ breach of his Business Protection Agreement with Business Communications, Inc.
. A plaintiff against whom a remittitur is granted has the option of accepting the remit-titur or requesting a new trial limited to damages. Gatewood v. Sampson, 812 So.2d 212, 223 (Miss.2002) (citation omitted). My decision would not preclude BCI from rejecting the trial court's remittitur (if granted) and requesting a new trial on damages, but a new *1228 trial, if requested, would be limited to nominal damages only.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4923116. Public record. Not legal advice.