It is not speculative any more since the market is real and the contract amount is real and future order is a certainty (restock at least is needed after expiration date passde) now. It can be arrived at by using normal market potential analysis for this type of computation. It is huge !
Another silly comment from a layperson. Let me explain. It is irrelevant what the market is now. It could be a $100 billion drug now. Doesn't matter. The test is whether it was speculative at the time of the breach which Parsons already opined it was in his opinion.
Yet this isn't your area of expertise, as you said yourself...therefore, in this area of law your a layperson. If not, publicize your credentials and address, so that we may retain you and make an informed decision based on your great wisdom and expertise. Homebuilder...real estate law right? What?!!!
even at the time the contract breach, the expectancy profit stream is the normal contract would bring in under that circumstance a reasonable and normal agreement should cover: upfront lump sum payment, tied milstone payments and tied royal fees based on range of sales reached if the siga negotiate in good faith. That is not speculative. all drug licensing agreement have these stipulations. This should be the base for computing the expectancy damage because if siga negotiated in good faith, these fees would be surely deserved by pip.
The fact that the upper court points out that expectancy damage should be considered is enough to show they deem the opinion be wrong. If not , why do they need to require that the expectancy damage be considered ( which means nothing) then?!