Plaintiffs were granted summary judgment on liability and a trial was ordered on the issue of damages. After nine months, jury entered a verdict for $49.5 million of plaintiff's alleged $495 million.
: The land appreciation values are also too speculative to recover, like all expectancy losses, regardless of the evidence. Instead of asking whether defendant could have reasonably foreseen that plaintiffs' benefits would not be realized if the dome was not built, it must be asked whether it was reasonably foreseeable that the dome would not be built if defendant did not build it. This was not reasonably foreseeable, as it was not discussed when the contract was made. The fact that plaintiffs tried to find funding after defendant decided not to proceed shows that they did not think it was the only way it would be built beforehand.
Defendant would not have entered into the contract if it foresaw that it would be liable to plaintiffs if it did not build the dome. This shows that it was disproportionate and unfair to assume that defendant assumed the risk of paying for plaintiffs' expectancy losses. The contract was made informally, and thus this was assumedly not considered and would not have been accepted had it been.
Plaintiffs' recovery would outweigh the value of any benefits defendant might have received. Its extra tax revenue cannot be considered because this was not part of the consideration of the contract. The profits from the dome cannot be because it might not have made a profit. Even if it did make a profit, it would be less than if the county invested the money elsewhere.
Even if expectancy losses could be recovered, plaintiffs could not provide any evidence of them that would not be incurably speculative. A retrial is then unwarranted.