- 9 -
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
business--or the loss of the business or loss of repu-
tation or any of that sort of stuff. That’s purely the
value of the inventory. [Emphasis added.]
Henry v. Commissioner, 77 T.C.M. (CCH) at 2215, 1999 T.C.M. (RIA)
at 1246-1247.4
After the trial in the lawsuit, the jury rendered a verdict
(jury verdict) finding (1) that du Pont placed Benlate on the
market with a defect which was the legal cause of damage to the
plaintiffs, (2) that there was negligence on the part of du Pont
which was a legal cause of damage to them, and (3) that there was
negligence on the part of the plaintiffs which was a legal cause
of damage to them. The jury charged 80 percent of total respon-
sibility to du Pont and 20 percent of total responsibility to the
4In Henry I, we found the statements of plaintiffs’ attorney
in closing arguments to the jury to be consistent with the
evidence submitted by the plaintiffs to that jury with respect to
the loss that they claimed they suffered as a result of their
applying Benlate to the orchid plants of Fred Henry’s Paradise of
Orchids. That evidence consisted of the testimony of the plain-
tiffs’ expert, an economist, that the value of the plaintiffs’
inventory of orchid plants was $3,254,559, to which that expert
added eight percent interest in order to arrive at the total loss
that the plaintiffs claimed in that lawsuit, or $3,796,118. Du
Pont also presented evidence in the lawsuit through an expert who
valued the plaintiffs’ inventory at $75,000 and who concluded
that the total loss of the plaintiffs was between $172,995 and
$267,803. No other witness testified in the lawsuit concerning
the damages sustained by the plaintiffs. See Henry v. Commis-
sioner, 77 T.C.M. (CCH) 2209, 2222, 1999 T.C.M. (RIA) 1238, 1254-
1255.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011