- 20 -
and that is, he reduced it from retail to wholesale.
In other words, when they had done the inventory, they
did it on a retail basis, and Dr. Reavy said, no, wait
a minute; if he's going to be a wholesale grower, we'll
put a wholesale value on it. Dr. Reavy actually re-
duced the inventory to this 3,254,000 to reflect the
wholesale value of the plants. Then, if you may re-
member, what we did then was I said, now, Dr. Reavy, if
you figure in just eight percent a year on that money
for the last two years, what are the losses to Fred and
Donna because of the loss of their inventory. When you
figure in the eight percent for two years, it comes out
to $3,796,000.
Now, I submit to you that that's a very conserva-
tive figure when you think about it. All we're asking
for here is the inventory. We're not asking for busi-
ness - or the loss of the business or loss of reputa-
tion or any of that sort of stuff. That's purely the
value of the inventory. [Emphasis added.]
After closing arguments to the jury at the conclusion of the
trial in the lawsuit, the Florida Court instructed the jury in
relevant part as follows:
If your verdict is for du Pont and Universal, you
will not consider the matter of damages, but if you
find for Fred Henry and Donna Henry, you should de-
termine and write on the verdict form in dollars the
total amount of damage which the greater weight of the
evidence shows that they sustained as a result of the
incident complained of.
The total amount of loss or damage may be cal-
culated either by considering the value of the lost
inventory or considering the lost value of the business
immediately before the claimed injury and its value
immediately after.
On September 23, 1993, the jury rendered a verdict (jury
verdict) in the trial in the lawsuit. As part of the jury
verdict, the jury found (1) that du Pont placed Benlate on the
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011