168 F.3d 1020 (7th Cir. 1999)
Appellants, a consultant and a consulting firm, were held responsible by a jury for damages for the appellants' inducement of breach of contract. Appellants sought review of the verdict and asserted that the "consultant's privilege" or the privilege of "honest advice" protected them from liability. Appellants argued that there was insufficient evidence to justify the jury's rejecting the privilege. Appellee company argued that the advice in question was outside the terms of the engagement and was therefore outside the protection of the consultant's privilege.
- On review, the court determined that the issue was whether the jury was justified in rejecting the defense.
- The court found that there was enough to justify a reasonable trier of fact's decision in rejecting the defense of the privilege asserted by appellants.
- The court held that the jury's decision was not so unreasonable as to warrant reversal.
- Judgment was affirmed accordingly.
The judgment in favor of appellee in appellee's action for inducement of breach of contract was affirmed because there was enough information to justify a reasonable trier of fact's decision to rejected the defense of the "consultant's privilege" or the privilege of "honest advice." Furthermore, the jury's decision was not so unreasonable as to warrant reversal.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.