Emerson v. Universal Products

Court of Delaware · Contracts

Contractscontract modificationnew trialsufficiency of the evidencecontract modificationroyaltiesmotion for new trialdirected verdict

Facts

The plaintiff assignor sued the defendant assignee to recover royalties allegedly due under a contract concerning patent rights to a mechanical joint used in automobile manufacture. The defendant had paid some royalties but contended the original contract had been modified to reduce royalties on a certain type of joints, relying on interviews, course of conduct, and extensive correspondence. The trial court submitted the question of modification to the jury as a factual issue, and the jury found substantially for the plaintiff. At trial, the defendant did not move for a directed verdict or otherwise challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, and in fact requested jury instructions asking the jury to determine whether a modification had occurred.

Issue

Can a defendant, on a motion for a new trial, argue for the first time that there was no evidence supporting the jury's verdict on a distinct issue, when the defendant made no motion for a directed verdict or other sufficiency objection at trial and affirmatively requested that the issue be submitted to the jury?

Rule

A claim that there was no evidence to support a verdict presents a question of law that must be raised at trial by a timely motion, such as a motion for a directed verdict or other proper objection. When parties submit the case to the jury without challenging evidentiary sufficiency, they may not later, on motion for a new trial, attack the verdict on that ground, particularly where the complaining party requested submission of the very issue to the jury.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a contract dispute in Wilmington, Delaware, Marisol Kent sued Harborline Fabrication, Inc. for unpaid commissions under a supply agreement. Harborline argued at trial that the agreement had been orally revised, but when both sides rested, Harborline made no motion for a directed verdict and raised no objection to sending the revision issue to the jury; after losing, it moved for a new trial claiming Marisol had offered no evidence disproving revision.

How should the court rule on Harborline's motion for a new trial?

Explanation. A contention that there was no evidence to support the verdict is a question of law that should have been raised during trial, such as by a motion for directed verdict or other timely objection. When a party allows the case to go to the jury without challenging sufficiency, it cannot raise that no-evidence point for the first time on a motion for new trial. (Derived from Emerson v. Universal Products (n.d.).)