Atacs Corporation Airtacs Corporation, in 97-1812 v. Trans World Communications, Inc., in 97-1813. Nos. 97-1812, 97-1813

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing the enforceability of a teaming agreement similar to the one here under Pennsylvania law
• explaining that absent agreement on essential terms, “there is nothing for the court to enforce.”
• finding that unknown variables, “unsubstantiated speculation and conjecture cannot form the basis of recovery”
• noting that “mathematical certainty [in proving damages] is not typically required” and “the general rule in Pennsylvania, as in most jurisdictions, is that if damages are difficult to establish, an injured party need only prove damages with reasonable certainty.”
• defining “reasonable certainty” as requiring a “rough calculation that is not too speculative, vague or contingent upon some unknown factor” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• describing “benefit of the bargain” damages as “designed to place the aggrieved in as good a position as would have occurred had the [action] been performed”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).