text:
454 F. 3d 1203 - Nebula Glass International Inc Ngi v. Reichhold Inc
454 F3d 1203 Nebula Glass International Inc Ngi v. Reichhold Inc
NEBULA GLASS INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Florida corporation d.b.a. Glasslam N.G.I., Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee,
REICHHOLD, INC., a foreign corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-14228.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Joseph H. Lang, Jr., Sylvia H. Walbolt, Lori Y. Baggett, Carlton Fields, P.A., Tampa, FL, Allison Oasis Kahn, Carlton Fields, Miami, FL, Fred J. Lotterhos, III, Holland & Knight, Lakeland, FL, for PLaintiff-Appellant.
Kimberly Lynn Boldt, The Boldt Law Firm, Boca Raton, FL, Louis L. Williams, Williams & Heffling, West Palm Beach, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before BIRCH and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and NANGLE*, District Judge.
MARCUS, Circuit Judge:
In this contract action, Reichhold, Inc. appeals from the entry of final judgment in the amount of $22.5 million in favor of the plaintiff, Nebula Glass International, Inc. d.b.a. Glasslam N.G.I., Inc. ("Glasslam"). A jury found that Reichhold supplied Glasslam with a defective product (resin), which constituted a breach of contract, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty. On appeal, Reichhold argues that the district court erred in denying its Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law on Glasslam's claims for certain future glass replacement damages and for lost profit damages. After thorough review, we are satisfied that a sufficient evidential foundation supports the jury's substantial award, and, therefore, affirm.
A. Background
The essential facts are these: the appellant, Reichhold, is a chemical company that manufactures, among other products, resin for use in making laminated glass. Appellee Glasslam supplies glass laminating resin and licenses a patented process for making an impact-resistant laminated glass product called Safety Plus 1. Safety Plus 1 is manufactured essentially by sandwiching resin and a thin film between two pieces of glass. The edges of the film are anchored to the window frame. This configuration allows the glass to withstand high-velocity impact from flying objects, such as may occur during a hurricane. However, ultraviolet (UV) light causes the film and resin to degrade. To prevent this degradation a UV absorbing compound must be added to the resin.
Beginning in 1996, Glasslam contracted with Reichhold to manufacture resins containing a certain amount (.2 percent) of Tinuvin 328, a UV absorbing compound. Contrary to the agreement between the two parties, however, Reichhold included only one-half of the required Tinuvin 328 in the resin, and later replaced Tinuvin 328 altogether, using instead another UV absorber, Uvinul, which blocks less UV light than Tinuvin 328. Glasslam used some of the defective resin and sold some to its customers, who used it to manufacture Glasslam's patented Safety Plus 1 laminated glass. Reichhold supplied Glasslam with defective resin for five years.
In early 2000, Custom Glass, one of the customers Glasslam supplied with Reichhold's resin, complained that the resin was discoloring and the glass was delaminating. Then, in the summer of 2001, Norman Foxworth of Dependable Glass, another customer, reported that the Reichhold resin supplied by Glasslam did not appear to be blocking UV light properly. When Glasslam asked Reichhold whether it was using .2 percent Tinuvin 328 to manufacture the resin, Reichhold falsely replied in the affirmative. Eventually, Glasslam discovered that Reichhold was not manufacturing the glass according to the detailed specifications they had agreed upon.
Not surprisingly, Glasslam filed suit on April 5, 2002, in Broward County Circuit Court, seeking damages for the defective resin it purchased from Reichhold. Glasslam's Amended Complaint asserted five claims: breach of contract (Count I); breach of express warranty (Count II); breach of implied warranty (Count III); breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose (Count IV); and fraud (Count V). Based on diversity of citizenship (28 U.S.C. § 1332), Reichhold removed the cause to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, on May 22, 2002. On December 3, 2002, the district court dismissed with prejudice Counts IV (breach of warranty of fitness for a particular purpose) and V (fraud). The remaining claims were tried to a jury.
Among others, Glasslam presented expert testimony from Dr. George Frederick Willard, Jr., an organic chemist the plaintiff retained to analyze the Reichhold resin. Based on his review and analysis, Dr. Willard testified that the resin Reichhold supplied to Glasslam "is basically bad resin" that suffered from two fundamental defects: first, it was "undercooked," meaning "the chemical reaction in the reactor ha[dn't] been ... cooked to completion"; and, second, it contained either too little Tinuvin or a different UV absorber altogether. He testified that glass constructed with the defective resin will fail in the following ways: the resin will yellow; the edges of glass panes will deteriorate; the glass will become less resistant to impact from wind-blown projectiles; and the two pieces of glass will separate (delaminate) when the resin, which binds the glass together, begins to break down.
Dr. Willard also testified on direct examination as to the time frame within which all of the defective resin would fail:
Q: In your opinion, because of the photochemical reactions [caused by Reichhold's non-conforming UV-absorbing additive] and because of the fact that the resin was undercooked . . . how long will it take this resin to fail, to become degraded, destroyed or discolored?
A: Well, if you are talking about a clear glass and you are talking about maybe a beachfront property in the Bahamas, I would estimate about a year.... If you are talking about a colored glass like a brown or a gray, and it was on a north facing building somewhere not on the beach, maybe under a canopy, it could go much longer, maybe five years before you would notice it.
The problem is you can — you have to define what a "failure" is. What is a "failure"? To some people the appearance of a yellow color is a failure because you can see it.
My concern is, though, long before you maybe see some real manifestation of the problem like the yellowness and the deterioration, that resin is in there changing. It's changing every day. It's trying to separate. If you can imagine, these small molecules are migrating, believe it or not, through that matrix of higher molecular weight materials. They are collecting at the glass surface and at the PET surface, the film surface. So I can't guarantee you how long that impact performance is going to last.
Q: What do you think is the parameters — because there are so many different things like dryness and latitude and sun and whether its shaded — what do you think the — you said one year. What do you think the outside parameter is?
A: About five years.
The jury returned a verdict in Glasslam's favor on all claims, and awarded Glasslam the following damages:
Out-of-pocket damages    $ 1,271,379.00
Unpaid customer claims   $14,665,621.00
Lost Profits             $ 6,563,000.00
TOTAL DAMAGES            $22,500,000.00
On appeal, Reichhold does not challenge the jury's finding of liability, but instead asserts that some of the damages — $12.3 million of the unpaid customer claims damages attributable to replacement costs for glass installed in Pensacola Christian College and all lost profit damages — were speculative and therefore unrecoverable.
B. Costs for Replacing Pensacola Christian College's Glass
Before trial, Reichhold moved for partial summary judgment as to Glasslam's claims for future glass-replacement damages. Because Glasslam's initial disclosures made pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 and its answers to interrogatories identified only nine customers that had actually experienced resin-related glass problems, Reichhold argued that any damages derived from future claims made by any other customers would be speculative and, therefore, not compensable. The district court partially granted Reichhold's motion as to speculative damages, which it defined as any future replacement claims unrelated to any of the specific customer complaints Glasslam identified in its answers. Notably, in its answers, Glasslam identified "Norman Foxworth, Dependable Glass Works, Covington, LA 70434" as a complaining customer, and explained that "Dependable Glass Works experienced problems with resin sold by Glasslam and manufactured by Reichhold." Glasslam's answer also explained that "there are unknown damages at a college in Pensacola in which $5.9 million was spent on laminated glass and installation."
At trial, Glasslam called Foxworth of Dependable Glass, who testified that he installed Safety Plus 1 glass in two Pensacola Christian College buildings. He explained that the glass had already begun to fail: "It had been installed about four or five months and we had a — small amount of pieces — three or four — maybe ten — I am not sure of the number of the pieces of glass we needed to replace. And we provided the glass and replaced them." Foxworth also said that, six months later, Pensacola Christian College "call[ed] and said... they had some more glass that was going bad." Then, two weeks before the trial, Foxworth received yet another complaint from the college regarding defects in "nine [additional] pieces of glass in Furman Dining Hall ... scattered all over the building ... like a checkerboard." According to Foxworth, the glass exhibited "deterioration of the resin and the interlayer." Reichhold's own glass expert also testified that he observed some delamination when he inspected glass installed in the college's auditorium.
Foxworth testified that the replacement cost would be $300,000 for defective glass in the college's dining hall and $12 million for defective glass in the auditorium. Although Foxworth had not yet made a claim for replacement of the Pensacola Christian College glass, he testified that making a claim appeared inevitable:
Q: Have you made a claim — well, you don't like the word "claim"—have you talked with Steve Howes [Glasslam's owner] about Furman Dining Hall?
A: I have not.
Q: Have you made a claim on Glasslam for that $12 million for replacement?
A: As of this moment I have not, but I have counseling that we have to — we are reviewing. From the information that I am receiving in the last three to four weeks, it appears I have no choice unless Glasslam can assure me how I am going to get the money to replace the glass.
Q: The $12,000,000?
A: Yes, sir. The $300,000 plus the $12,000,000.
At the close of Glasslam's case, Reichhold moved for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50, urging that the jury should not be allowed to award any damages for replacement of the Pensacola Christian College glass. Reichhold explained that the district court had already granted partial summary judgment barring recovery "as to potential claims for exposure for faulty glass," and argued that this ruling necessarily barred Glasslam from recovering for any damages other than the "specific complaints" alleged in Plaintiff's Answers to Interrogatories. The district court said that the issue could be addressed through jury instructions and that Reichhold could move to correct any judgment that was not supported by the evidence. At the close of all evidence, the court denied Reichhold's renewed Rule 50 motion.
During the charging conference, Reichhold again raised its concern about Glasslam's claim for damages related to replacement of the college's glass:
THE COURT: Didn't I rule on that? Didn't I say that speculative claims that haven't even been made are out of the lawsuit? But I don't think I excluded legitimate claims that were made that just haven't been paid yet by Glasslam.
MR. LOTTERHOS [Reichhold's Attorney]: But, your honor, the claims are not legitimate and Glasslam has no obligation to pay them unless there has been a judgment against Glasslam. For instance, if you were to hand them $12,000,000 for Pensacola Christian College, the college—right now that there is only nine panes of glass that are delaminated in that college. Suppose none of them ever delaminate ....
THE COURT: And I think you should be able to argue that to the jury that they shouldn't give any money for Pensacola College. But if the jury sees otherwise, if the jury sees that this claim is a legitimate claim and it's just a question of time before Glasslam is going to have to pay it, then it seems to me that non-speculative future damages are legitimate.
Ultimately, the district court gave the following jury instruction, proposed by Glasslam, and over Reichhold's objection: "Glasslam may only seek to recover damages for those specific claims which have been presented to you during this trial. You should not consider at this time any damages for future claims which have not been specifically presented in this trial." After deliberation, the jury awarded Glasslam damages for the college's glass.
In post-trial motions, Reichhold again asserted that damages for replacement of the college's glass were impermissibly speculative and precluded by the district court's partial summary judgment. Again, the district court denied these motions.
C. Lost Profit Damages
At trial, Glasslam also presented evidence in support of its claim that Reichhold's defective resin caused Glasslam to lose profits. Glasslam's owner, Steve Howes, testified that Glasslam's reputation was significantly and discernibly damaged because of the many problems associated with Reichhold's non-conforming resin. He explained that his main product, the Safety Plus 1 window system, was taken out of production because of Reichhold's resin and the buildings with the defective glass were offered by his competitors as a rationale for rejecting Glasslam's product:
Q: Has it affected your business?
A: It's affected our reputation something terrible.
[M]ost of the fabricators of the Safety Plus product have ceased manufacturing it because of all the failures they have had. And there are many, many buildings throughout the state of Florida that have the product in them that my competitor salesmen use as exhibits against me.
Jackson Memorial Hospital has become a very, very famous building in the glass industry. And Glasslam's reputation in the hurricane business is bad. It's hard to explain just how bad.
Howes further explained that Glasslam experienced a rapid rate of revenue growth in the years after the patented Safety Plus 1 window system hit the market, but, notably, after word spread of the problems caused by Reichhold's defective resin, the sales of Safety Plus 1 dropped to "almost zero," and Glasslam "lost most of ... [its] customers."
Glasslam also introduced the testimony of two different glass fabricators — Roger Warwick and Victor Prieto — who stopped purchasing Glasslam glass after experiencing problems associated with delamination and discoloration. Both testified that their companies began purchasing Glasslam glass in 1996, but stopped doing so in 2001, after the glass it had installed began to delaminate or discolor.
Finally, Glasslam offered the testimony of Ronald Patella, an accounting and business valuation expert who opined that the company's lost profits attributable to decreased Safety Plus 1 revenue, past and future, amounted to $7,621,000.
At the close of the presentation of all of the evidence, Reichhold moved for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 on Glasslam's lost profits claim, asserting that Glasslam failed to prove causation or the amount of lost profits with reasonable certainty. Reichhold argued that Glasslam's expert improperly calculated lost profit damages by including in his calculations customers who stopped doing business with Glasslam for reasons unrelated to the non-conforming resin, customers who continued to purchase from Glasslam despite having resin problems, and customers who never experienced a problem with the resin. Again, the district court denied this motion as well as Reichhold's renewed post-trial Rule 50 motion on the claim for lost profits.
II. Glass Replacement Damages
Reichhold claims the district court erred by denying its Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law as to damages for Glasslam's lost profit and replacement of the college's glass. Fed. R.Civ.P. 50 provides a vehicle for defendants to challenge the sufficiency of a plaintiff's evidence at and after the close of the case:
(a)(1) If during a trial by jury a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue, the court may determine the issue against that party and may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against that party with respect to a claim or defense that cannot under the controlling law be maintained or defeated without a favorable finding on that issue.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a) (emphasis added). "We review a Rule 50 motion de novo and apply the same standard as the district court." Telecom Technical Servs. Inc. v. Rolm Co., 388 F.3d 820, 830 (11th Cir.2004). "In doing so, we draw all inferences in favor of the non-moving party," and "affirm the jury verdict unless there is no legal basis upon which the jury could have found for [the plaintiff]." Id. "Although we look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the non-movant must put forth more than a mere scintilla of evidence suggesting that reasonable minds could reach differing verdicts." Campbell v. Rainbow City, Ala., 434 F.3d 1306, 1312 (11th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Abel v. Dubberly, 210 F.3d 1334, 1337 (11th Cir.2000)). Elsewhere, we have explained that "[t]he court should deny [a motion for judgment as a matter of law] if the plaintiff presents enough evidence to create a substantial conflict in the evidence on an essential element of the plaintiff's case." Pickett v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., 420 F.3d 1272, 1278 (11th Cir.2005); Bogle v. Orange County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 162 F.3d 653, 659 (11th Cir.1998) ("[I]n order to survive a defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law . . . the plaintiff must present evidence that would permit a reasonable jury to find in the plaintiff's favor on each and every element of the claim.").
Reichhold's appeal of the $12.3 million in damages awarded for future replacement of the college's glass offers two errors made by the district court: first, the court improvidently reversed its own partial summary judgment order and prejudiced Reichhold when, late in the trial, it allowed Glasslam to seek damages for replacement of the Pensacola Christian College glass; and, second, Reichhold says the replacement damages sought for the college's glass were speculative and, therefore, improper as a matter of law. We are unpersuaded.
Reichhold's first argument fails because the district court's trial ruling reasonably construed its own summary judgment order as having allowed recovery of damages for future replacement of the Pensacola Christian College's glass, and this determination was well within the district court's discretion.
The relevant portion of the district court's April 27, 2004 order granting partial summary judgment as to speculative damages claims provided:
Although the Court does not treat the possibility of safety risks lightly, Glasslam has failed to come forward with affirmative evidence supporting any potential damages claims. Other than the specific complaints identified in Glasslam's Answers to Interrogatories (provided by Reichhold), Glasslam has not provided any evidence of other claims it will have to address in the future.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Glasslam's claims for potential exposure for faulty glass could only be deemed conjectural or hypothetical at best. Glasslam has not set forth any evidence demonstrating any type of actual or imminent injury with respect to potential claims .... Accordingly, Reichhold's Motion for Summary Judgment on this issue is granted as to potential claims for exposure for faulty glass.
The order distinguishes between speculative claims — those based on replacement of glass for which Glasslam received no complaints and produced no evidence indicating that the glass would have to be replaced — and permissible, non-speculative claims — those based on replacement of glass for which Glasslam had received specific complaints and identified those complaints in its interrogatory answers. It seems evident to us that the district court's partial summary judgment order barred the former but not the latter.
Glasslam's claim for replacement of the college's glass falls into the latter category of claims not barred by the partial summary judgment order. Glasslam's interrogatory answers identified a specific complaint received from "Norman Foxworth, Dependable Glass Works, Covington, LA 70434," and explained that "Dependable Glass Works experienced problems with resin sold by Glasslam and manufactured by Reichhold." Glasslam's interrogatory answers also specifically identified "unknown damages at a college in Pensacola in which $5.9 million was spent on laminated glass and installation." These references to problems encountered at Pensacola Christian College are specific enough to bring the claim within the ambit of non-speculative future replacement claims as defined by the district court.
When Reichhold raised the same argument before the district court, the court construed its partial summary judgment order in the same way:
[I]t's just a question of time before Glasslam is going to have to pay it, then it seems to me that non-speculative future damages are legitimate.
(emphasis added). When a district court interprets its own order, we are obliged to review that interpretation for abuse of discretion and accord its interpretation deference so long as it is reasonable. Cave v. Singletary, 84 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (11th Cir.1996); Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Sepco Corp., 918 F.2d 920, 924 (11th Cir. 1990). See also In re Chicago, Rock Island and Pac. R.R. Co., 865 F.2d 807, 810-11 (7th Cir.1988) ("The district court is in the best position to interpret its own orders."). Here, Reichhold has shown, at most, only that the summary judgment order may have been ambiguous. But identifying a potential ambiguity does not render the district court's construction of its own order unreasonable. Indeed, the district court's interpretation was altogether reasonable. There was no abuse of discretion in allowing Glasslam to present the claim for replacement of the college's glass to the jury.
Reichhold also argues that the replacement damages for the college's glass were speculative because the evidence was insufficient to establish that Glasslam would ever have to replace the college's windows, and if no replacement is ever required, this damage award would amount to a windfall recovery for Glasslam. We disagree. The record evidence presented at trial, when construed in a light most favorable to Glasslam, was sufficient to enable the jury to find it was reasonably certain Glasslam would have to replace the glass at the college.
We are Erie-bound by Florida law in deciding this diversity case, Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938), and the Florida Supreme Court's recent decision in Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Tompkins, 651 So.2d 89 (Fla.1995), is a useful starting point. There, the plaintiff was injured in a motor-vehicle accident. Id. at 90. Liability was admitted, so only the question of damages went to the jury. The Florida Supreme Court explained that future economic damages were recoverable if they were established with reasonable certainty. Id. at 90-91. "Under the certainty rule, which applies in both contract and tort actions, recovery is denied where the fact of damages and the extent of damages cannot be established within a reasonable degree of certainty." Miller v. Allstate Ins. Co., 573 So.2d 24, 27-28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (emphasis added) (citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 352 (1981); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 912 (1982)); McCall v. Sherbill, 68 So.2d 362 (Fla.1953); accord Richard A. Lord, Williston on Contracts § 64:8 ("The amount of damages must be established with reasonable, not absolute, certainty .... It is sufficient if a reasonable basis for computation of damages is afforded, even though the result will only be approximate." (footnotes omitted)).
Reichhold argues nonetheless that two contingencies make the replacement damages for the Pensacola Christian College's glass wholly speculative: (1) the college's glass had not yet failed, and may never do so; and (2) Dependable Glass, the contractor that manufactured and installed the college's glass with the defective resin Glasslam supplied, had not yet made, and may never make a replacement claim. We disagree, because Glasslam presented sufficient evidence at trial that, if construed in a light most favorable to Glasslam, established with reasonable certainty both that the College's glass will fail and that Dependable Glass will seek replacement costs.
As we have already noted, Glasslam introduced the testimony of Dr. Willard, an organic chemist, who explained that the resin Reichhold supplied to Glasslam was defective because it was "undercooked," meaning "the chemical reaction in the reactor ha[dn't] been ... cooked to completion," and that it contained either too little Tinuvin or a different UV absorber altogether. Willard also testified that all of the glass containing the defective resin — which includes the College's glass — would fail one to five years after installation. Moreover, Norman Foxworth of Dependable Glass explained that the college's glass began to fail less than one year after it was installed, and that it failed on at least three separate occasions. Finally, Reichhold's own glass expert testified that he observed delaminating glass when he inspected the college.
Although it is a close question, after thorough review we are satisfied the evidence was sufficient to allow the jury to find that the college's glass was reasonably certain to fail within five years of installation. And, once the jury reached this conclusion, there was sufficient additional evidence from which the jury could also find that Pensacola Christian College and/or Dependable Glass were reasonably certain to seek replacement costs from Glasslam. Indeed, Foxworth's testimony left little doubt on this point when he explained that "it appears I have no choice [but to file a claim for replacement of the college's glass] unless Glasslam can assure me how I am going to get the money to replace the glass." Foxworth further testified that the college had already required him to replace pieces of faulty glass on three separate occasions. Moreover, common sense alone strongly suggests (and the jury could find) that Dependable Glass would seek compensation for $12.3 million in replacement costs. Reichhold points to no evidence undermining this inference. Under Florida law, future damages need only be reasonably certain, not absolutely certain. See Tompkins, 651 So.2d at 91; Miller, 573 So.2d at 27-28. The possibility that the college and Dependable Glass would fail to seek recovery from Glasslam for replacement of the defective glass is, indeed, remote. At all events, there was sufficient evidence that Glasslam was reasonably certain to incur damages for replacing the college's glass. The district court properly denied Reichhold's motion for judgment as a matter of law.
III. Lost Profit Damages
Reichhold also argues that the district court erred in denying its Rule 50 motion on Glasslam's claim for lost profit damages. Reichhold says it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law for two independent reasons: (1) Glasslam failed to prove causation with reasonable certainty; and (2) Glasslam failed to provide an adequate standard for determining the amount of lost profit damages. Again, we remain unpersuaded.
It is settled under Florida law that lost profit damages, like all damages, cannot be speculative and must be proved with reasonable certainty. See, e.g., W.W. Gay Mech. Contractor, Inc. v. Wharfside Two, Ltd., 545 So.2d 1348, 1350-51 (Fla. 1989); Twyman v. Roell, 123 Fla. 2, 166 So. 215, 218 (1936). And since proving lost profits invariably includes some element of prediction about how the market would have behaved but for the defendant's tortious act or breach, Florida courts have often noted that proving lost profits damages is difficult, but by no means impossible. See, e.g., W.W. Gay, 545 So.2d at 1350-51; Twyman, 166 So. at 217-18; Aldon Indus., Inc. v. Don Myers & Assocs., Inc., 517 F.2d 188, 191 (5th Cir.1975).
In W.W. Gay, the Florida Supreme Court explained the standard for proving lost profits this way:
The two seminal Florida cases on recovery of prospective profits are Twyman v. Roell, 123 Fla. 2, 166 So. 215 (1936), and New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Utility Battery Manufacturing Co., 122 Fla. 718, 166 So. 856 (1935). In New Amsterdam this Court held that prospective business profits are generally too speculative and dependent on changing circumstances to be recovered. New Amsterdam provided an exception allowing the plaintiff to show the amount of his loss by competent proof. However, this exception only applied to the interruption of an established business. Twyman, on the other hand, did not limit recovery to established businesses. There, the Court stated that, if there is a "yardstick" by which prospective profits can be measured, they will be allowed if proven. 123 Fla. at 6, 166 So. at 217. The Court provided further that the "uncertainty which defeats recovery in such cases" is the cause of the damage rather than the amount. "If from proximate estimates of witnesses a satisfactory conclusion can be reached, it is sufficient if there is such certainty as satisfies the mind of a prudent and impartial person." Id. at 7-8, 166 So. at 218.
We follow the holding in Twyman. A business can recover lost prospective profits regardless of whether it is established or has any "track record." The party must prove that 1) the defendant's action caused the damage and 2) there is some standard by which the amount of damages may be adequately determined.
545 So.2d at 1350-51 (emphasis added); see also Sostchin v. Doll Enters., Inc., 847 So.2d 1123, 1127-28 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); HGI Assocs., Inc. v. Wetmore Printing Co., 427 F.3d 867, 878-79 (11th Cir.2005).
Reichhold says Glasslam failed to prove causation. Reichhold cites to Aldon Industries, Inc. v. Don Myers & Associates, Inc., 517 F.2d 188, 193 (5th Cir.1975), for the proposition that a dealer may not recover lost profits caused by manufacturer's defective product unless the dealer has become so identified with the defective product that in the eyes of third parties it and not the manufacturer is held responsible for the defects. According to Reichhold, Glasslam failed to prove that it had become so identified with Reichhold's resin that Glasslam (not Reichhold) was perceived as being responsible for the defect. Glasslam, however, introduced sufficient testimony to show that third parties held Glasslam responsible for Safety Plus 1's failure. Howes testified that the defective resin badly damaged Glasslam's reputation, that most fabricators of the product had stopped making it, and that his competitors used the resin's defects against him. Howes also said that Glasslam experienced an extraordinarily sharp drop in its sales of the product after the problems concerning the defective resin became evident. This evidence, if credited, was sufficient to clear Aldon's hurdle.
Reichhold nevertheless argues that Glasslam did not offer enough evidence that the defective resin actually caused Glasslam to lose profits, but instead merely assumed causation. Reichhold points to evidence that some customers stopped buying from Glasslam for reasons unrelated to the problems associated with Reichhold's defective resin, and that most of the customers never reported experiencing any problem with the resin. Glasslam counters that evidence of each individual customer's motivation is not required because Glasslam's evidence, taken as a whole, sufficiently proved causation. We agree.
The Florida Supreme Court's decision in W.W. Gay, 545 So.2d at 1349, is instructive on this point. There, investors formed a company, Wharfside Two, to build and operate a hotel, and hired W.W. Gay to construct the hotel's water system. Before and after the hotel opened, observers noticed a petroleum-like odor in the hotel's water system that Gay was unable to correct. Wharfside sought lost profit damages from Gay, arguing that Gay caused the odor problems that, in turn, reduced the number of guests at the hotel. The trial court refused to allow expert testimony concerning lost profits as being too speculative. Id. On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding: We reject the contention that the causal connection between foul-smelling water and lost revenues was too tenuous. There was competent and substantial evidence that the odor was a cause of reduced occupancy. This evidence was supported by studies prepared by reputable economic analysts and provided a sufficient standard to support the experts' testimony concerning lost profits. The expert testimony, when combined with the economic studies, was clearly sufficient to raise a jury question. Accordingly, the trial court erred by excluding testimony on lost profits.
Id. at 1351. In dissent, Judge McDonald raised virtually the same argument Reichhold asserts here, but failed to convince the majority of the court:
In my view Wharfside utterly failed to prove any connection between foul-smelling water and reduced occupancy rates. I do agree that two managers opined that this was a cause of lost revenues, but there was no factual foundation for their opinions. The proof falls far short of satisfying the mind of a prudent and impartial person that the odor was a cause of an occupancy rate less than that which had been projected. No one testified that prospective guests declined to come to or to return to the hotel because of the odor from the water.
Id. (emphasis added).
We are guided by W.W. Gay in concluding that lost profit damages may be proven in these circumstances without testimony regarding each customer's purchasing decisions. The lost profit damages in this case were not speculative simply because Glasslam did not present evidence of every customer's reason for not buying Safety Plus 1 glass. Under W.W. Gay, so particularized a form of proof is not required. Id. at 1351. The combination of direct and circumstantial evidence presented at trial was sufficient to establish causation with reasonable certainty. Howes testified that the defects in Safety Plus 1 glass became widely known, to the detriment of Glasslam's reputation. He testified unambiguously that as word spread in the glass industry that Safety Plus 1 windows contained defective resin, his sales declined to "almost zero." Howes explained that prominent examples of the product's failures, like the glass installed in Jackson Memorial Hospital, were used by competitors to sell their products instead of his. He added that "most of the fabricators of the Safety Plus product have ceased manufacturing it because of all the failures they had." Glasslam also introduced the testimony of two individual glass fabricators — Roger Warwick and Victor Prieto — who stopped purchasing Safety Plus 1 product after glass they installed began to delaminate and discolor.
In addition to the direct evidence on causation, Glasslam introduced circumstantial evidence too. From its inception in 1998 through 2000, Safety Plus 1 revenue grew at an annual rate of 27.5 percent per year, but beginning in 2001 — at precisely the same time Warwick and Prieto stopped buying Safety Plus 1 because of glass failure — Glasslam's sales of Safety Plus 1 decreased. All of the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to Glasslam, allowed the jury to find with reasonable certainty that Reichhold's defective resin caused Glasslam's Safety Plus 1 revenue and profits to decline.
The cases Reichhold cites do not advance its argument. Reichhold's reliance upon Brough v. Imperial Sterling Ltd., 297 F.3d 1172 (11th Cir.2002) is misplaced. There, Brough sued Imperial Sterling Ltd (ISL) for breach of a contract to pay commission for sale of real estate. The jury awarded future profit damages to Brough based on evidence that certain properties would be sold after trial but before Brough's contract would have expired. On appeal, a panel of this Court held that "the jury's award of $2,585,000 for `future commissions on other Florida properties' was based on speculation that ISL would sell its property," and was, therefore, impermissible because "it was unclear at the time of the trial whether ISL would have sold its Florida property before November 1, 2002, when Brough's contract expired." Id. at 1177.
Brough differs substantially from the instant case in important ways. Brough's entire case depended on proving how a single company would behave in the future based on that company's actions in the past. Glasslam's case included testimony about a large group of consumers' actual purchasing decisions for three years, and extrapolating that trend forward. A far larger sample size means Glasslam's projection, unlike the plaintiff's in Brough, is not susceptible to the randomness of an individual company's whim. Glasslam's case is more like W.W. Gay than Brough.1
Moreover, Glasslam's case for future profits rests on the inferences that one may reasonably draw from direct evidence that some customers refrained from buying Safety Plus 1 after the defects became known, coupled with the demonstrable fact that its profits were trending sharply upward for the three years before the resin problems surfaced, and plunged sharply at precisely the time when the defects became known in the relevant community. And as Glasslam's expert made clear at trial, his projections of lost profits assumed an upward trend in revenues without differentiating between sales to existing and new customers. Neither the past profits nor projected future profits was premised on the speculation that "none of Plaintiff's customers would have changed their business practices," nor that "all these customers would refuse to do business with Plaintiff in the future." Reichhold's argument—that the jury could only award damages for future lost profits if they speculated that the exact same customers would continue buying the exact same amount of product—is simply wrong.2
Finally, Reichhold argues that the amount of lost profit damages was not adequately proven. In lost profit cases, Florida's courts have clearly held that once causation is proven with reasonable certainty, uncertainty as to the precise amount of the lost profits will not defeat recovery so long as there is a reasonable yardstick by which to estimate the damages. As the Florida Supreme Court in W.W. Gay explained, "the `uncertainty which defeats recovery in such cases' is the cause of the damage rather than the amount. `If from proximate estimates of witnesses a satisfactory conclusion can be reached, it is sufficient if there is such certainty as satisfies the mind of a prudent and impartial person.'" 545 So.2d at 1350-51(quoting Twyman, 166 So. at 218). Thus, lost profit damages are recoverable if there is "some standard by which the amount of damages may be adequately determined." W.W. Gay, 545 So.2d at 1350-51; accord Sostchin v. Doll Enters., Inc., 847 So.2d 1123, 1128 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); HGI Assocs., Inc. v. Wetmore Printing Co., 427 F.3d 867, 877-80 (11th Cir.2005).
Glasslam's accounting and valuation expert, Ronald Patella, testified that the company's total lost profits, past and future, were $7,621,000. He explained his methodology this way:
Glasslam ... ha[s] many product lines. There is only one product line that we are concerned with here . . . Safety Plus 1 .... So what I had to do was look at the financial statements and the revenues prior to the damages, which would be 1998 through 2000, look at the level of revenues, their growth rate, and from that I projected into the future how much estimated revenues would be.
In quantifying the amount of revenue Safety Plus 1 would have produced but for the defective resin, Patella projected continued growth in revenue by extrapolating forward the company's established historical growth rate for the same product. Patella projected the lost profits from 2001 through 2006, but did not project any future lost profits beyond 2006 because he assumed that "by the end of 2006 . . . [Glasslam] would be in the same position with Safety Plus 2 as they would have been with Safety Plus 1. So that's when the damages stopped. They were not out-of-pocket anything any more."
From 1998 to 2000, the average yearly rate of revenue growth from the Safety Plus 1 product was 27.5%. Again, based on that historical rate of growth, and an expanding market caused by the widespread enactment of building codes in Florida and elsewhere requiring impact-resistant glass, Patella projected that Safety Plus 1 revenue would have increased 30.0% in 2001, 35.0% in 2002, 40.0% in 2003, 25.0% in 2004, 20.0% in 2005 and 15.0% in 2006. The projected average rate of revenue growth over the six year period was 27.5%, which equals the rate of growth Safety Plus 1 actually experienced before Reichhold's breach.
Thus Patella projected Glasslam's Safety Plus 1 revenue would have increased at a rate of 27.5%, while assuming a correlative increase in variable production costs. By calculating total projected Safety Plus 1 revenue, less total projected production costs (fixed and variable), Patella arrived at a gross lost profit figure. For the years from 2003 to 2006 Mr. Patella also deducted from the gross lost profit figure the amount of net income Glasslam earned on the Safety Plus 2 product, which Glasslam developed to mitigate its damages and replace Safety Plus 1. That deduction reduced Glasslam's gross lost profits from $15.2 million to $7.6 million.
Patella performed his calculations in 2004, therefore the net lost profit figure breaks down into two categories: past lost profits and future lost profits. Patella calculated past lost profits by comparing the actual 2001-2003 Safety Plus 1 revenue against his projections of what profits would have been during those years but for Reichhold's breach. But for the years 2004 to 2006, no actual revenue numbers were available, so Patella projected forward actual, post-breach Safety Plus 1 revenue and compared it with the projected "but for breach" revenues based on pre-breach revenue trends.
Patella's detailed calculations and methodology provided an adequate yardstick for the jury to award lost profit damages. Although Reichhold is surely correct that Patella's calculations involved estimating a number of variables that cannot be predicted with certainty, Florida law clearly does not require that the amount of lost profits be certain. Again, the law does require a reasonable standard for calculation, and we are satisfied that Mr. Patella's testimony provided the jury with a reasonable standard. See W.W. Gay, 545 So.2d at 1351.3
Accordingly, we affirm in all respects the district court's denial of Reichhold's Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law.
Honorable John F. Nangle, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, sitting by designation
Similarly distinguishable isDouglass Fertilizers & Chemical, Inc. v. McClung Landscaping, Inc., 459 So.2d 335, 337 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). There, the court held that plaintiff's "claim for lost profits ... is ... too remote. McClung sought to recover for loss of future business with Cardinal, not business that it actually had with the developer. McClung had no future contract binding Cardinal to buy further shipments of sod. No future price was established or agreed upon." Id. Glasslam's lost profit claim did not depend on any obligation by its customers, but rather on the common-sense notion that a large group of sophisticated commercial purchasers would not, without cause, collectively reject a product they had been using. Nor does Glasslam's claim depend, as McClung's did, on predicting the behavior of a single customer.
The other cases Reichhold relies on are also inapposite. Reichhold cites toDictiomatic, Inc. v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty. Co., 958 F.Supp. 594, 604 (S.D.Fla.1997), for the proposition that a proper analysis of lost profits cannot rest on too many variables. There, the court rejected Dictiomatic's claim for lost profits because evidence showed Dictiomatic experienced "income losses throughout its entire period of operation immediately prior to the hurricane, and further that there is inadequate proof that Dictiomatic would have achieved profitability during the period of business interruption or immediately thereafter." Id. Here, in contrast, the evidence showed substantial profits in the three years leading up to Reichhold's breach. Projecting future profits based on the continuation of a substantial existing trend is far different from projecting profits that contradict an existing trend.
Royal Typewriter Co. v. Xerographic Supplies Corp., 719 F.2d 1092, 1105-06 (11th Cir. 1983), is likewise unavailing. There, the plaintiff, a copy machine dealer, sued the manufacturer alleging breach of contract and warranty based on the machines' failure to perform in accordance with the manufacturer's performance assumptions regarding the potential profitability and tax advantages of a hypothetical dealer. The plaintiff's proof of damages consisted of a "Special Analysis" that compared the plaintiff's actual earnings with an estimate of what it would have earned had it leased all of its copiers and otherwise operated its business on the basis of the manufacturer's performance assumptions. A panel of this Court held that there was no evidence that the plaintiff ever operated its business in accordance with the [performance assumptions]." Id. We concluded that "the hypothetical firm in this study was not sufficiently comparable to plaintiff's business operation...." Id. Unlike the facts presented in this case, the plaintiff in Royal Typewriter had no track record of profitability on which to base projected profits, but attempted to model the business's profits based entirely on a hypothesis. Here, in sharp contrast, Glasslam used three years of actual profit figures to project future profits.
In Sostchin v. Doll Enters., Inc., 847 So.2d 1123, 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), the court rejected as speculative the plaintiff's future lost profit damages. The court found, in particular, that the plaintiff's expert used gross profits without deducting costs, and used a single year's profit figures to extrapolate forward six and one half years. "Using this small slice of time to define the trend for the entire six and a half year remainder of the lease term, the expert projected that, but for the fire, the profitability of the business would have continued to escalate dramatically." Id.
Last, in Brevard County Fair Ass'n, Inc. v. Cocoa Expo, Inc., 832 So.2d 147, 153 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), the court rejected a jury's verdict awarding lost profits because "the evidence showed that the [plaintiff] had not earned profits for a reasonable time before the dispute, and as such, lost profits were not established by a reasonable degree of certainty." This, of course, differs markedly from the instant case where profits in the years leading up to the breach were well documented.
Reichhold's other objections to the damages calculations are no more compelling, and are largely a reprise of its causation arguments that the lost profit calculation: (1) included customers who never personally experienced problems with Reichhold's resin; (2) included customers who stopped doing business for reasons unrelated to Reichhold's resin; and (3) failed to attribute specific amounts of lost profits to specific customers
Reichhold cites no authority for any of this, and we remain unpersuaded. First, lost profits are not limited to customers who personally experienced the failure. See W.W. Gay, 545 So.2d at 1351(holding that expert testimony and economic studies showing loss of prospective customers were sufficient to raise a jury question as to lost profits, even in the absence of any testimony by individual customers). Second, the lost profit calculation was based on an aggregate trend of revenue growth, not on predictions about individual customers' purchase decisions. The method used did not assume that Glasslam would keep the same customers from 2001 to 2006, but assumed simply that Glasslam would continue to gain more business than it lost, as it had from 1996 to 2000. Thus, Glasslam's calculations are not invalidated by evidence that some customers stopped buying Safety Plus 1 for reasons unrelated to Reichhold's resin. Third, Reichhold is simply wrong in its unsupported assertion that lost profits must be attributable to the loss of specific customers.
Finally, Reichhold argues that Glasslam "admittedly was not seeking damages for `overseas' customers," and, therefore, it was improper for Glasslam's lost profit calculations to include sales to overseas customers. But Reichhold cites no order or stipulation excluding damages for lost profits from overseas customers, and bases this claim on a single line of ambiguous testimony by Howes on cross examination. Even if we were inclined to assign any merit to Reichhold's argument, we would still be unmoved because Reichhold failed to raise this argument in its Rule 50(a) or 50(b) motions. "By well settled convention, appellate courts generally will not consider an issue or theory that was not raised in the district court." F.D.I.C. v. Verex Assurance., Inc., 3 F.3d 391, 395 (11th Cir. 1993); see also Ford v. United States, 989 F.2d 450, 453 (11th Cir.1993).


text:
Lady Hornets sting Towanda for Senior Night win
By: Ed Weaver | PIAA District IV | May 6, 2022 | Photo courtesy Matt Rendos
The Wellsboro Varsity Softball team won their 2nd straight game, picking up a 10-3 win over Towanda during Senior Night on Thursday, May 5.
"This group is a wonderful group of girls who I've had the pleasure of coaching and watching grow over the years," head coach Hannah Smith said. "They were my first group of eight graders when I began volunteering with the middle school program and I cannot be more proud of the young ladies they are growing up to be. All three of them have very bright futures and we can't wait to see what they do next!"
The Lady Hornets found themselves in a 3-0 hole as the Lady Knights scored once in the 1st and added 2 more runs in the 3rd. Wellsboro then went on to score 10 straight runs to claim the victory. A 2-run 3rd brought the game to within a run then Wellsboro took the lead with a 5-run 4th and never looked back.
Wellsboro had 11 hits on the night including 5 extra base hits. Junior Jordyn Abernathy was 2-for-3 at the plate with freshmen Alexandra Urena and Paige Logsdon going 2-for-3 and 2-for-4, respectively. Seniors Abbye Cavanaugh and Emma Coolidge and juniors Molly Ingerick and Madaline Bordas added the remaining hits. Urena also drove in 4 runs on the afternoon. Junior Rylie Boyce started in the circle and earned the win, allowing 3 runs (2 earned) on 3 hits with a walk and 4 strikeouts in 4 innings. Urena came on for the final 3 innings for the save.
The win improves Wellsboro's record to 6-10 (4-8 NTL Large School Division). The team is back in action on Monday, May 9 at Wyalusing.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Understated but full of character, Harper is a collection of beautiful flat weaves designed to balance even the busiest space. Woven by hand of 100% wool in India, Harper's simple patterns and subdued colors are perfect for your living room, dining room, den, bedroom, or any living space. Almost all the rugs in this collection come in 8x10, 9x12, 10x14 and extra large sizes perfect for any home, mansion, recreational area and conference room. Shop for similar rugs like this one in our Asheville, NC; Kannapolis, NC and Gaffney, SC Rug & Home showrooms.


Second Bedroom Fully Furnished Town House Kanata.
Exterior Fully Furnished Town House Kanata (1).
Third Bedroom Fully Furnished Town House Kanata.
« Kanata Estates - Remnor » combine le confort et l'extravagance dans cette maison en rangée avec trois chambres à coucher. Cette propriété familiale avec des chambres spacieuses et lumineuses a un sous-sol fini, incluant un foyer. Profitez d'une voie, cour et terrasse privée, ainsi que votre propre garage. Cette maison luxueuse offre des services même après les heures de bureau. Vous pourrez profiter d'une cuisine entièrement équipée avec de grands électroménagers et des comptoirs en granit. Des planchers en bois franc, une grande chambre maître avec une superbe salle de bains et vestiaire vous attend dans cette propriété somptueuse.
The place was great to stay at. I was working in Ottawa for a couple months and it was much nicer to stay at a house rather than a hotel for this long.
The grass should be cut regularly. The bottom of the steps to the back yard should have a patio stone for the landing instead of regular earth which turns into mud which would be carried in the house by a pet... Difficult to keep the pet clean especially with the white carpeting.
The townhouse was a perfect solution to our need for interim housing during our relocation. It was wonderful to feel relaxed in our own home instead of a hotel. We would recommend them in an instant!


text:
Rupert est une série télévisée d'animation canadienne-français-britannique en 65 épisodes de 23 minutes fondée sur le personnage de l'ours Rupert imaginé par Mary Tourtel, et diffusée entre le  et le  sur YTV.

C'est Nelvana, Ellipse Animation et TVS qui ont produit la première saison, puis Scottish Television (aujourd'hui STV Central) a repris le contrôle de la série lorsque TVS a été fermée.

Au Québec, elle a été diffusée à partir du  sur Canal Famille, et en France à partir du  sur France 3 dans Les Minikeums.

Synopsis

Les aventures d'un jeune ours nommé Rupert.

Voix

Voix québécoises
 Vadim Schneider : Rupert
 Carl Béchard :
 Élise Bertrand :
 Yves Massicotte : Professeur
 Johanne Léveillé : Édouard l'éléphant
 Daniel Lesourd : Pudgy
 Hugolin Chevrette-Landesque : Billy

Voix françaises
 Julie Lemieux : Rupert Bear
 Valerie Boyle : Mrs. Bear
 Guy Bannerman : Mr. Bear
  : Bill Badger
 Colin Fox : Professor
  : Podgy Pig
 Rick Jones : voix additionnelles

Commentaires

L'ancienne série est  en 1970.

Une nouvelle série en stopmotions sort en 2006, nommée .

Références

Liens externes

 Fiche de la série sur Planète Jeunesse

Série télévisée créée en 1991
Série télévisée disparue en 1997
Série télévisée canadienne disparue en 1997
Série télévisée canadienne des années 1990
Série télévisée française des années 1990
Série d'animation de YTV
Série d'animation canadienne
Série d'animation française
Série d'animation doublée au Québec
Série télévisée pour la jeunesse

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


excellence in both collision repair and customer care.
THE PAW state-of-the-art collision repair facility, covers 40,000 square feet, on three acres.
Located JUST 1 mile south of Good Hope Road and 1/2 mile north of Silver Spring Drive between 60th and 64th Streets.
PAW technicians have a combined experience of over 150 years ... and growing. They are trained and certified by the automotive industry's top collision repair sanctioning bodies.
An accident, large or small, can be a very stressful experience. The last thing you need is a collision repair facility that adds to your stress.
Call Paw for "The Stress-Free Repair Experience".


text:
Q: My free version app is not showing in google play, but paid version is After read lots of other posts and could not find an answer, I ask if someone had the same problem.
I wrote two versions of the same APP: one for free and another paid version.
Hours after publish both, only the paid version can be found in google play. The free version does not "exists" if I use the search tool (using web or devices), but it is PUBLISHED in developer console.
The most weird is the fact I also can't find the application clicking "More From Developer"! Where the free version is?!
Comparing the Manifest of both, they are the same except the package and name.
Any one can help? Thanks!

A: Answering my own question: there is a bug in the new layout of developer console. I added two languages in my application: English, Portuguese. But instead of create two different languages, developer console added English twice. With the old interface I removed the second language and create a new Portuguese translation again. It worked!

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Příjmení Čepelák nese více osobností:

 Jiří Čepelák (též známý jako Juraj Čepelák) (1917–2000?) – významný český zoolog, entomolog a pedagog
 Josef Čepelák (* 1905) – český kameraman
 Ladislav Čepelák (1924–2000) – český grafik, kreslíř a ilustrátor
 Marek Čepelák (* 1993) – český fotbalový obránce
 Václav Čepelák (1915–1975) – český fotbalista, útočník, reprezentant Československa.


text:
Andrew Goidell
The University of Oklahoma is a public institution of higher education in Norman, Oklahoma, immediately southeast of Oklahoma City. It also operates the Health Sciences Center at Oklahoma City and a branch at Tulsa. The university was founded in 1890, before Oklahoma became a state. Total enrollment of all three locations exceeds 30,000 students, most of whom are undergraduates.
The university awards bachelor's, master's, doctoral, and professional degrees in a wide range of disciplines. Among the colleges at the main campus are those of liberal arts and sciences, architecture, atmospheric and geographic sciences, business, Earth sciences, education, engineering, international studies, journalism, law, and visual and performing arts. The Health Sciences Center consists of colleges of allied health, dentistry, medicine, nursing, pharmacy, and public health. Special academic options include an honors program and study abroad programs in more than 50 countries. The University of Oklahoma is a major research institution. Its facilities include museums of art and natural history, the Center for Analysis and Prediction of Storms, and the Institute for Energy and the Environment. The university's Political Communication Center houses a collection of thousands of political commercials dating back to 1936.
The University of Oklahoma's varsity sports teams, nicknamed the Sooners, compete in Division I of the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA). The football team, which plays in the Football Bowl Subdivision, has won several collegiate national championships. Under football coach Bud Wilkinson the Sooners won a record 47 straight games in the 1950s. School colors are crimson and cream.


1. What makes humans special?; 2. Dopamine in the brain; 3. Dopamine and behaviour; 4. Dopamine and mental health; 5. Evolution of the dopaminergic mind; 6. The dopaminergic mind in history; 7. Relinquishing the dopaminergic imperative.
This text explains the significance of dopamine and how it is at the root of many aspects of uniquely human behaviour.
You can earn a 5% commission by selling The Dopaminergic Mind in Human Evolution and History on your website. It's easy to get started - we will give you example code. After you're set-up, your website can earn you money while you work, play or even sleep! You should start right now!


By subscribing to or using any of our services you agree that you have read, understood and are bound by the Terms, regardless of how you subscribe to or use the services. If you do not want to be bound by the Terms, you must not subscribe to or use our services. These Terms and various other policies are binding as per the provisions of the Information Technology (Intermediaries guidelines) Rules, 2011 formulated under the Information Technology Act of 2000.
In these Terms, references to "you", "User" shall mean the end user accessing the Website, its contents and using the Services offered through the Website, "Service Providers" mean independent third party service providers, and "we", "us" and "our" shall mean Soul.
www.soulslings.com/us.soulslings.com ("Website") is an Internet-based content and e-commerce portal licensed by Soul.
Use of the Website is offered to you conditioned on acceptance without modification of all the terms, conditions and notices contained in these Terms, as may be posted on the Website from time to time. Soul at its sole discretion reserves the right not to accept a User from registering on the Website without assigning any reason thereof.
You will receive a password and account designation upon completing the Website's registration process. You are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of the password and account and are fully responsible for all activities that occur under your password or account. You agree to (a) immediately notify Soul of any unauthorized use of your password or account or any other breach of security, and (b) ensure that you exit from your account at the end of each session. Soul cannot and will not be liable for any loss or damage arising from your failure to comply with this Section 2.
Soul provides Internet-based service through the Web Site. This service enables users to purchase original merchandise such as baby carriers (know as, "Products"). The Products can be purchased through the Website through the method of payment offered. The sale/purchase of Products shall be additionally governed by specific policies of sale, like cancellation policy, return policy, etc., and all of which are incorporated here by reference. In addition, these terms and policies may be further supplemented by Product specific conditions, which may be displayed on the webpage of that Product.


The student is exposed to all facets of the industry with emphasis on problem solving and transferability of skills. Each student must successfully complete an internship with a Caterpillar dealer.
Students can complete 2 associate's degree programs in 3 years by enrolling in the dual degree option.
The Caterpillar program at Penn College has strong industry support from both the CAT dealers and the Caterpillar Foundation. Since 1994, CAT dealers have contributed more than $1.63 million in cash, tuition, scholarships, and in kind contributions to the college. The Caterpillar Foundation has contributed more than $875,000. Penn College offers a unique Caterpillar-sponsored curriculum. With Caterpillar developing new products, resulting in global expansion and opportunity, it is an exciting time to begin this program of study at Penn College. The Heavy Construction Equipment Technology: Caterpillar Emphasis program is one of eight programs in the United States accredited by the Associated Equipment Distributors Foundation (AED).
AED Accredited by The AED Foundation.
Heavy construction equipment technician for a Caterpillar or other heavy construction equipment dealership, mine, quarry or natural gas industry; forestry equipment dealer; leasing company or contractor; field service/CAT sales representative for an equipment or engine distributor; service occupations such as service writer, warranty writer, parts manager, and assistant service manager.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median annual wage for mobile heavy equipment mechanics, except engines was $51,920 in May 2018. The top 10 percent earned more than $76,600.
First you need to apply to Pennsylvania College of Technology and enroll in the Heavy Construction Equipment Technology program (CH) to reserve a seat in the major. Then you may contact a participating Caterpillar dealer to inquire about sponsorship opportunities.
Foley Inc. 5102 Beekmantown Dr.
You are expected to purchase your own tools which can be purchased at the College Store or through a dealer such as Sears or Snap-on. The advantage to purchasing your own tools is that the tools are yours to use during your time as a student and later as an employee. Larger specialty tools such as those used in diagnostics and testing are purchased by the College or donated by the Caterpillar dealer program for use by all students enrolled in the program.
Ms. Annie Fuller, Corporate Recruiter, H.O. Penn Machinery Company, Inc.
Mr. Karl Quinn, Training Manager, Alban Tractor Company, Inc.
Mr. Gary W Shields, Jr., Manager, On-Hwy Technical Support, Alban Tractor Company, Inc.


A survey was done in February 2019 by taking photographs at 7 prominent intersections across Pimpri Chinchwad area at peak and off-peak hours of the day. During the survey, total 3950 vehicles were covered (3195 single riders and 755 double riders). An analysis of the photographs showed the usage of helmets at 38%, a shocking indicator of how callously road safety is adhered to. A single rider helmet compliance was at 49% and in cases where the rider was carrying a passenger, it was 30%. It was a shocking revelation that the pillion rider compliance was an abysmal 2.12%.
It was however interesting to note that at the Hinjewadi intersection, where again there was no enforcement taking place, the compliance rate was fairly high at 82%.


Approved supplier Alcumus PSM fill a new position within our programme offering advice on personnel/HR/H&S matters in workplace. Not every business can warrant having their own HR department, so if you don't have cover in-house these guys can offer a valuable service. They are here to advise on personnel issues, health and safety compliance, etc. and will help you legally as well as in an advisory capacity, plus we have used them here for many years and can vouch for the great service they provide!
Contact your Account Manager for more information on this service.


text:
avantnews.com : Sports
Indianapolis, IN - December 22, 2006 -- After trouncing all the opponents on their schedule this year, the Indianapolis Colts are doing their best to get over the recent kidnapping of their Pro-Bowl quarterback Peyton Manning and are continuing their quest to complete the season at a perfect 16-0.
Following their victory over the San Diego Chargers 24-7 last Sunday and heading into their final game of the regular season against the Seattle Seahawks, the Colts are now realizing that they are possibly facing an unexpected challenge from a team that is not on their schedule, but in the back of their minds – the 1972 Miami Dolphins.
Since Peyton Manning mysteriously disappeared early Monday morning from his suburban Indianapolis home, rumors and speculation have been running rampant as fingers have been pointed at nearly every NFL team. It seems apparent now, however, that all the pundits have been looking in the wrong direction and needed only to peer into the past to find the culprits.
Law enforcement authorities have begun narrowing in on the one group that has the most compelling motive for this crime, the 1972 Miami Dolphins. According to a source familiar with the investigation, the FBI has been enlisting the assistance of sports columnists across the nation to scour their contact lists to see if they can find any information relating to any unaccounted for members of the undefeated 1972 Dolphins team.
Many people in sporting circles slapped their foreheads and uttered the words "of course" when the news was released regarding the suspicion of the old Dolphins. It has been well documented during the course of every season since 1973 that many members of the 1972 Dolphins team get together in person or via conference call and have a champagne toast once the last remaining undefeated NFL team has been beaten.
Perhaps not as well known, but potentially more telling, is the fact that outside of those members from the undefeated team like Don Shula, Nick Buoniconti, Larry Csonka, Bob Griese, Jim Langer, Larry Little, and Paul Warfield who have been immortalized in the Hall of Fame, many of the role players from the 1972 Dolphins clutch to this 30 year record as if their entire identity and reason for existence depended upon it.
"We have determined that in 1998 conversations regarding the possible kidnapping of quarterback John Elway occurred amongst members of the 1972 Miami Dolphins when the Denver Broncos started their season at 13-0," said Robert Bupkiss, spokesman for the Indianapolis Sheriff's Office. "Witnesses to these conversations could not say whether these conversations were serious or in jest and the Broncos lost the next game so any potential plans were scrapped."
This time, however, the evidence is mounting against an extreme element from the undefeated Dolphins team hoping to protect their gridiron days of glory. Mr. Bupkiss confirmed that authorities have determined that the note found in Mr. Manning's Hummer had been assembled from words cut out of magazines like Field & Steam and Golf Digest, which definitely fits the profile of these aging warriors.
Despite these off-field distractions, the question everybody in the football world is asking is whether the Colts can continue their winning ways without the service of their on-field general, Peyton Manning?
"His [Peyton Manning's] teammates, the Colts organization and entire Colts nation are in turmoil," said Indianapolis head coach Tony Dungy. "He is certainly one of the keys to our success and a valuable member of this team. Should he not be located before game time on Saturday, he will be missed, but all of us are working hard to put together a winning plan as we prepare to face the Seahawks."
The sports world will know the outcome Saturday evening when the ones sipping champagne will either be Colts and their fans (and, perhaps, Peyton Manning) or the 1972 Miami Dolphins (perhaps from paper cups inside a cramped jail cell).
Paris Hilton Restoration Completed
Ousted Karl Rove Takes New Job With Hugo Chavez
Taliban Strengthen Grip on People's Republic of South Dakota
3rd Iraq Study Group Report Calls for Iterative –Izations
Top GOP Losers Reconsider Suicide PAC
Bush Finds Iraq Exit Strategy in Crawford Dungarees
World Leader, Inc. World Leader at World Leading
Stock Markets Close as Global Earth World Planet International Buys All Shares
Ford Motor Co., in Cost-Saving Measure, to Cease Automobile Production
AutoChat Fills the Solo Driver's Cell Phone Void
Former Congressman Tom DeLay To Help Debug Microsoft Vista
Bill Frist global warming Karl Rove computers Dick Cheney Supreme Court television Saddam Hussein US Constitution Congress biology elections space Hollywood conservatives DNA Scott McClellan environment internet religion shopping Tom DeLay Donald Rumsfeld universe creationism celebrities Christianity humans budgets military Defense Department innovations poverty law Halliburton oil reality television psychology Earth economy terrorism George W. Bush white house God Iraq research abortion reproduction war intelligent design peace obesity evolution Microsoft nuclear weapons death health crime Republican Party cuisine
Ford Motor Company Preemptively Recalls 6.1 Million 2011 Models
Astrologers Lead Move to Shift Earth Three Feet to the Left
In Quest for Conservative Credentials, McCain Burns Witch


Come celebrate the greatest day in history at Grace Bible Church!
Kids Church available for Kinder and under.
A bi-lingual service on the courtyard; bring a blanket it could be chilly.
A blended service for the entire family; some modern and traditional elements.
A bi-lingual service on the courtyard. Bring a blanket it could be chilly.
A blended service for the entire family some modern and traditional elements.


text:
Email Force
Email Force is built on the same ROBUST platform as the Converzly Copy Engine. It's super simple to use because it uses the same automation technology. It'll quickly and effortlessly create you profitable emails for ANY product you're promoting, in any ni
Apple Has A Crazy New Design For Future iMacs
Tag :#apple, #computers, #imac, #patent
Apple's iMac has largely stopped its design for many years now, which means that it is tied for a redesign at some part in the immediate future, or at least that's what we hope. Whether or not that will happen remains to be seen, but in the meantime, it looks like Apple has come up with a pretty crazy idea for a possible redesign.
According to a recently discovered patent by AppleInsider, it depicts a design for the iMac that Apple has cooked up that relies on a single membrane of glass. As you can see in the drawing above, it shows the iMac with its display housed in a curved make that ascent towards the user, with a small stand on the back to help keep it propped upright.
At the bottom of the make, there is a space where it looks like where the( potential virtual) keyboard could be housed, together with two spaces to the left and right of it, which we're not sure if it could also double up as trackpads, generate a true-blue all-in-one desktop system where it would work right out of the box without customers having to attach peripherals to it.
It is a jolly outrageous blueprint mind and given that it is a patent, there's actually no relate if Apple plans on originating it a reality. That said today, as much as we'd love to see Apple tackle a redesign of the iMac, the fact that the iMac Pro propelled not too long suggests that we could still have to wait quite a bit.
Apple Has A Crazy New Design For Future iMacs, original content from Ubergizmo. Read our Copyrights and terms of use.
Read more: ubergizmo.com


text:
Trump family troubles: Don Jr. and Lara Trump implode in their Sunday AM talk show appearances
Vinnie Longobardo
Vinnie Longobardo is a 35-year veteran of the TV, mobile…
The Beach Boys' Brian Wilson is livid that the group he founded is playing a Trump fundraiser today
As the presidential campaign enters its final weeks, Donald Trump is enlisting his family to help try and turn around what seems to be an inevitable defeat at the hands of someone who is more capable, more intelligent, and more compassionate than himself.
Indeed those related to the president by blood or by marriage seem to be able to replicate his penchant for shameless lies and outrageous conspiracy theories easily, making them perfect surrogates to appear on news outlets with particularly low standards about what constitutes an acceptable guest opining on the matters of the day.
Two of Trump's immediate family made the rounds of the Sunday morning talk shows today and the results were predictably embarrassing for anyone but the president's most ardent supporters.
Donald Trump Jr. went to Fox News this morning to appear on Maria Bartiromo's program to try to get more mileage out of the latest manufactured scandal that his father's operatives have been peddling about Joe Biden's son Hunter.
The appearance devolved into a parody of the scion of a third world dictator calling on government authorities to arrest his father's opponents, real or imagined.
Junior was asked by Bartiromo what he thought his father would do if the FBI does not cooperate in the investigation of Hunter Biden or in preventing the increase in the use of the mail-in ballots that Democratic voters — more fearful of contracting COVID-19 than their Republican counterparts have been — have been turning to.
Trump Jr.'s response only served to provide a further reason to vote against a second term for his father, a threat to dismantle the FBI as it's presently constituted.
"We have to keep fighting," the president's son replied to the Fox News anchor's query. "We're fighting with one leg and two arms tied behind our back. You know, we don't have the mainstream media that's willing to at this point, not even just boost the other side, but literally run cover for what would arguably be the biggest corruption scheme in American political history. This is the stuff that makes Watergate look like kindergarten."
Funny, that's what most thinking Americans feel about most of what his father has accomplished committed during his term to date.
Junior accused the FBI of trying to "knowingly peddle" information about his father's Russian connections, an allegation that seems awfully similar to exactly what he and his father are trying to do with the dubious information likely sourced from Russian intelligence agents supposedly concerning Hunter Biden.
If you read Don Jr.'s next statement, you can see how much more applicable it is to the entire Trump family.
"They refuse to acknowledge their own corruption," Jr. explained. "And the reality is, I think, when Donald Trump wins, he has to break up the highest level of the FBI. He has to get rid of these things. And more importantly, maybe break up the swamp in general."
"That's Donald Trump's next move," he prophesied, "if I'm him and if he wins, which I think he will. Because what's going on is disgusting. This is the stuff of communist China!"
Gee, didn't his father say he was going to do that 4 years ago? Why should anyone vote for someone who doesn't accomplish their goals?
Turn down your volume before watching the video clip below, unless you really like the sound of angry shouting.
Sign the petition to tell Mitch McConnell: No vote on a new Supreme Court Justice until after inauguration!
Meanwhile over on CNN, the wife of Jr.'s brother Eric, Lara Trump, was proving that she had no more brains or integrity than her husband while speaking with Jake Tapper on that network's State of the Union.
Tapper had challenged the presidential daughter-in-law about a comment Lara Trump had made at a campaign event earlier this year where she appeared to ridicule Joe Biden for his stuttering problem.
"Every time he's on stage and they turn to him, I'm like, 'Joe, can you get it out? Let's get the words out, Joe,'" Lara said at the time while speaking to a crowd of Trump supporters.
The second son's first wife tried to weasel out of responsibility for the mocking statement about her father-in-law's opponent by denying knowing that Biden suffers from the verbal disability.
Instead, she took an even worse route on her search for a way out of the corner she had painted herself into. She attributed Biden's difficulty getting "the words out" to a general case of mental collapse.
"I think what we see with Joe Biden, Jake, is very clearly a cognitive decline. That's what I'm referring to. It makes me uncomfortable to watch somebody on stage search for questions and try and figure out an answer," Lara Trump gamely attempted to make her insensitivity into an even more potent and untrue attack on Biden.
Lara also tried to explain away Donald Trump Sr.'s violence-instigating attacks on Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D) at his Muskegon rally in the state yesterday with a comment that insulted the intelligence of CNN's viewers.
"He wasn't doing anything to provoke people to threaten this woman at all," referring to the president. "He was having fun at a Trump rally."
You can see an excerpt from Lara Trump's campaign appearance on CNN's State of the Union in the video clip below.
On #CNNSOTU, @jaketapper presses senior Trump campaign adviser @LaraLeaTrump about comments she made about Democratic nominee @JoeBiden earlier this year. https://t.co/4DTJDfDyZk
— State of the Union (@CNNSotu) October 18, 2020
Follow Vinnie Longobardo on Twitter.
Original reporting by David Edwards at RawStory and by Joseph Choi at The Hill.
We want to hear what YOU have to say. Scroll down and let us know in our NEW comment section!
Vinnie Longobardo is a 35-year veteran of the TV, mobile & internet industries, specializing in start-ups and the international media business. His passions are politics, music and art.
Vinnie Longobardo October 18, 2020