S6 v. Wing Enterprises
S6 v. Wing Enterprises, 2024 UT App 105 (Christiansen Forster, J.)
Contracts / Civil Procedure
S6 provided consultation services to Wing, but Wing terminated the relationship. S6 filed suit against Wing. The district court dismissed all claims but one, a promissory estoppel claim. After a trial, a jury returned a special verdict in favor of S6, which was subsequently vacated by the court because there was no evidence of a reasonably clear and definite promise. S6 appealed, arguing several errors. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, holding:
- The district court did not err in dismissing S6’s implied-in-fact contract and unjust enrichment claims prior to trial.
- The district court acted well within its broad discretion in both excluding Expert’s opinion and in excluding S6’s damages evidence as a sanction for S6’s violating the disclosure requirements of rule 26 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.
- The district court correctly granted Wing’s post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law and vacated the jury’s verdict that found Wing liable for promissory estoppel. The court’s award of costs was likewise proper.
