ÿWPC¡= ÊNƒ2bñÆCuƒ;$é6¼HB!1.”Iia AS•4z>í¦É…ËLèWÍq¤'3Öv²çmìœÑÕÕùåchÚ›ˆ¯L?ô‘{vJÕ…Ïr ËãvŸñõ•eŽ×|¢Ü·êžïΑë¿ìzÚ(ÒµÊZÊ×0‹h˜´a+¯(3õiwûÁž833àtV#P¥Ýª²"{ÞI=R¿¦ëð%9Ôç¶ø~ÚýS*ºñ¨š‹|¾ÝhPɪ&ßd+^jsÕ­+$jIad5 œ þ¥T±Dåb…Mª‹‹‚ãÎb›ò$xM¡~5 ñüøó?ŠÃö±CŸx^Êzøð;©Wývoº¹».Âêmp¨ÝúùR …Ês7½®ïTmF~‰gƒdÛI²¤è¹]yP=Zö¸6$;ràÎè4jUý7#׊·ßeíÉé‰kù™ ÇzËèµæ8h*?\Í {ûª«õþuV$‘[óµôöGÙ…“våÂMZZ¡U/…!M9Dó7U†ÖªÙ¬lÎxÌýÈã`òxš€õ"ØaE šìwí©Y@[ÿA~“Þ0¬”i”z%õ轞"öºaòTI/ÏD°GWÙ5[·imja#!NUNo %½ 0(Ã^ ëw@÷47 K Z m\ U)>s N± UB³ bõ ý 0µ º 0Dº Ýþ UÛ000UFDDDúŠŠŠŠ'„„„]«U>;Fnõï ï ï ï ï ï ï ï ï ï ï ï ï ï 'ä%U> (UNI(X—(Xï+U>G/UN…/…/…/…/…/…/…/…/…/…/…/Ó/Ó/Ó/Ó/]c2ÍÀ6U>8Ë8U>Ë:; ;U>D=D=D=D=D=D=D=D=D=D=D=D=D= B‚=‚=‚=EŸ=˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0(ÎáA Z‹6Times New Roman Regularˆ($¡¡‚šæ*Æ Ù+Û+Ý+ß+á+ã+Uä+€å+Uæ+€ç+y‡˜*ÆSHAREDÀá3|xç+ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ´è\( 9Z+&Courier Regular<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- ù- (e(2–‹$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€›ÐˆdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó öÝ ƒ–‹$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€›ÐˆdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€ ¾1 XÐXdЈd=Óà ` àÔ€ ˆ¾1XˆˆÔBrown€surmises€that€the€jury€misunderstood€that€theÐ ° Ð$10,000€came€out€of€the€$75,000€deposit€and€was€not€on€top€of€it,Ïand€that€the€jury€then€subtracted€$85,000€from€the€requestedÏ$272,500€to€award€him€a€total€of€$187,500.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ÓÝ ƒ–‹$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€›ÐˆdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€ ¾1 XÐXdЈd=Óà ` àÔ€ ˆ¾1XˆˆÔInterstate€also€made€claims€against€Brown€and€Freidel'sÐ ° Ðin€equity,€unjust€enrichment,€and€conversion.€€Interstate€failed€toÏpreserve€those€claims€below€against€Brown;€and,€in€all€events,€theÏjury€verdict€would€seem€dispositive€of€their€merits.€€Interstate'sÏconversion€claim€against€Freidel's€has€been€waived€on€appeal;€itsÏclaims€against€Freidel's€in€equity€and€unjust€enrichment,€whichÏwere€rejected€by€the€jury,€are€discussed€below.òòóó€€ KÝ ƒ–‹$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€›ÐˆdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€ ¾1 XÐXdЈd=Óà ` àÔ‡ ˆ¾1XˆˆÔWhen,€as€here,€such€motion€was€not€filed€until€after€aÐ ° Ðparty€has€moved€for€summary€judgment,€the€movant€must€demonstrateÏthat€the€proposed€òòóóamendments€are€supported€by€"substantial€andÐ @ Ðconvincing€evidence."€€òòResolution€Trustóó,€30€F.3d€at€253.Ô#†ˆ›ˆX ˆ¾1å#Ô Ý ƒ–‹$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€›ÐˆdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€ ¾1 XÐXdЈd=Óà ` àÔ‡ ˆ¾1XˆˆÔBrown€also€sought€leave€to€amend€the€counterclaims€to€addÐ ° Ðfurther€allegations€under€Mass.€Gen.€Laws€ch.€93A€based€onÏInterstate's€conduct€in€the€transaction€and€Interstate'sÏallegations€of€forgery€by€Brown.€Ô#†ˆ›ˆX ˆ¾1å#Ô<õÑ 9Z+‹.Courier New Regular ðÝ ƒ–‹$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€›ÐˆdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ ˆ¾1XˆˆÔÓ=€ ¾1 XÐXdЈd=Óà ` àAccording€to€Freidel's,€when€it€later€attempted€to€makeÐ ° Ða€deal€with€Interstate€for€the€sale€of€the€eight€color€press,€itÏwas€informed€that€Interstate€had€already€fulfilled€its€need.Ô#†ˆ›ˆX ˆ¾1œ#Ô Ý ƒ–‹$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€›ÐˆdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€ ¾1 XÐXdЈd=Óà ` àÔ‡ ˆ¾1XˆˆÔInterstate's€argument€that€Freidel's€cannot€keep€itsÐ ° Ðportion€of€the€deposit€($50,000)€under€the€law€of€equity€and€unjustÏenrichment€is€addressed€below€in€our€discussion€of€Freidel's€motionÏfor€attorney's€fees€and€double€costs.Ô#†ˆ›ˆX ˆ¾1å#Ô SÝ ƒ–‹$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€›ÐˆdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡#ˆ¾1XˆˆÔÓ=€#¾1#XÐXdЈd=Óà ` àò òòòó óSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòElliotóó€v.€òòS.D.€Warren€Co.óó,€134€F.3d€1,€6€(1stÐ ° ÐCir.€1998)€("A€trial€court€is€obliged€to€inform€the€jury€about€theÏapplicable€law,€but,€within€wide€limits,€the€method€and€manner€inÏwhich€the€judge€carries€out€this€obligation€is€left€to€his€or€herÏdiscretion.");€òòsee€alsoóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòPaniagua„Ramosóó,€251€F.3dÐ Ð  Ð242,€245€(1st€Cir.€2001)€("The€primary€function€of€a€trial€court'sÏinstructions€is€to€create€a€roadmap€for€the€jurors,€limning€thoseÏlegal€rules€that€they€must€follow€in€finding€the€facts€andÏdetermining€the€issues€in€a€given€case.€For€the€most€part,€the€lawÏprovides€no€set€formulae€for€converting€these€legal€rules€into€layÏlanguage€--€and€the€choice€of€what€words€are€to€be€spoken€belongs,Ïwithin€wide€margins,€to€the€trial€judge.").´è\( 9Z+&Courier Regular 1Ý ƒ–‹$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€›ÐˆdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€ ¾1 XÐXdЈd=Óà ` àÔ€ ˆ¾1XˆˆÔWe€also€reject€Interstate's€appellate€challenge€to€theÐ ° Ðadmission€of€Brown's€testimony€about€how€he€was€to€be€compensated.€ÏBrown€testified€to€his€personal€knowledge€of€compensationÏarrangements.€€It€was€well€within€the€trial€judge's€discretion€toÏadmit€that€testimony.à h à dÝ ƒ–‹$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€›ÐˆdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€›ˆÐˆdЈd=Óà ` àÔ‡ ˆ¾1XˆˆÔBrown€has€not€appealed€the€district€court's€denial€of€hisÐ ° ÐChapter€93A€claim. ëÝ ƒ–‹$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€›ÐˆdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ ˆ¾1XˆˆÔÓ=€ ¾1 XÐXdЈd=Óà ` àAlthough€Interstate€also€challenges€the€district€court'sÐ ° Ðearlier€denial€of€its€motion€for€summary€judgment€on€Brown'sÐ xÈ  Ðcounterclaims€based€on€Integra's€lack€of€corporate€capacity,€theÏproper€redress€is€not€through€appeal€of€that€denial€but€throughÏsubsequent€motion€for€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law,€and€then€throughÏappellate€review€if€that€later€motion€is€denied€by€the€trial€court.€ÏòòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòWhalenóó€v.€òòUnit€Rig,€Inc.óó,€974€F.2d€1248,€1251€(10th€Cir.Ð Ð  Ð1992);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòLocricchioóó€v.€òòLegal€Servs.€Corp.óó,€833€F.2d€1352,Ð ˜è Ð1358„59€(9th€Cir.€1987).€€While€Interstate€raised€the€issue€of€lackÏof€capacity€to€sue€in€its€Rule€50(b)€motion,€that€argument€wasÏproperly€rejected€by€the€district€court€given€Interstate's€failureÏto€present€any€evidence€to€the€jury€on€what€ultimately€boiled€downÏto€issues€of€fact.€ò òó óÔ#†ˆ›ˆX ˆ¾1œ#ÔÔ‡ ˆ¾1Xˆˆ›Ô Ý ƒ¦k$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€p§ÐˆdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€6‚” ˆÐXdЈd=Óà ` àÔ‡6ˆ‚”XˆˆÔInterstate's€argument€that€Freidel's€cannot€keep€itsÐ ° Ðportion€of€the€deposit€($50,000)€under€the€law€of€equity€and€unjustÏenrichment€is€addressed€below€in€our€discussion€of€Freidel's€motionÏfor€attorney's€fees€and€double€costs.Ô#†7ˆp§ˆX ˆ‚”å#Ô´è\( 9Z+&Courier Regular(ÎáA Z‹6Times New Roman Regular NÝ ƒ¦k$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€p§ÐˆdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€:‚” ˆÐXdЈd=Óà ` àÔ‡:ˆ‚”XˆˆÔòòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòKnapp€Shoes,€Inc.óó€v.€òòSylvania€Shoe€Mfg.€Corp.óó,Ð ° Ð72€F.3d€190,€204€(1st€Cir.€1995)€(citing€òòMatsushita€Elec.€Corp.óó€v.Ð xÈ ÐòòSonus€Corp.óó,€284€N.E.2d€880,€890€(Mass.€1972));€òòsee€alsoóó€òòÔ_ÔAugiatÔ_Ô,Ð @ ÐInc.óó€v.€òòAegis,€Inc.óó,€631€N.E.2d€995,€997„98€(Mass.€1994)òòóó€("DamagesÐ X Ðfor€lost€profits€are€recoverable€only€when€proof€is€made€withÏsufficient€certainty.")€(internal€quotation€marks€omitted).Ô#†;ˆp§ˆX ˆ‚”æ#Ô NÝ ƒ–‹$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€›ÐˆdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€ ¾1 XÐXdЈd=Óà ` àÔ‡ ˆ¾1XˆˆÔòòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòKnapp€Shoes,€Inc.óó€v.€òòSylvania€Shoe€Mfg.€Corp.óó,Ð ° Ð72€F.3d€190,€204€(1st€Cir.€1995)€(citing€òòMatsushita€Elec.€Corp.óó€v.Ð xÈ ÐòòSonus€Corp.óó,€284€N.E.2d€880,€890€(Mass.€1972));€òòsee€alsoóó€òòÔ_ÔAugiatÔ_Ô,Ð @ ÐInc.óó€v.€òòAegis,€Inc.óó,€631€N.E.2d€995,€997„98€(Mass.€1994)òòóó€("DamagesÐ X Ðfor€lost€profits€are€recoverable€only€when€proof€is€made€withÏsufficient€certainty.")€(internal€quotation€marks€omitted).Ô#†ˆ›ˆX ˆ¾1æ#Ô´è\( 9Z+&Courier Regular(ÎáA Z‹6Times New Roman Regular †Ý ƒ–‹$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€›ÐˆdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€ ¾1 XÐXdЈd=Óà ` àÔ‡ ˆ¾1XˆˆÔInterstate€also€argues€that€because€Integra€no€longerÐ ° Ðexisted€as€of€the€time€of€the€purported€contract€with€Interstate€„„Ïthe€August€25,€1995€proposal€„„€Integra€could€notÔ#†ˆ›ˆX ˆ¾1å#ÔÔ‡ ˆ¾1Xˆˆ›Ô€legally€enterÐ @ Ðinto€any€such€contract.€€We€have€disposed€of€this€argument.Ô#†ˆ›ˆX ˆ¾1æ#Ô SÝ ƒ¦k$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€p§ÐˆdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡Lˆ‚”XˆˆÔÓ=€L‚”#ˆÐXdЈd=Óà ` àò òòòó óSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòElliotóó€v.€òòS.D.€Warren€Co.óó,€134€F.3d€1,€6€(1stÐ ° ÐCir.€1998)€("A€trial€court€is€obliged€to€inform€the€jury€about€theÏapplicable€law,€but,€within€wide€limits,€the€method€and€manner€inÏwhich€the€judge€carries€out€this€obligation€is€left€to€his€or€herÏdiscretion.");€òòsee€alsoóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòPaniagua„Ramosóó,€251€F.3dÐ Ð  Ð242,€245€(1st€Cir.€2001)€("The€primary€function€of€a€trial€court'sÏinstructions€is€to€create€a€roadmap€for€the€jurors,€limning€thoseÏlegal€rules€that€they€must€follow€in€finding€the€facts€andÏdetermining€the€issues€in€a€given€case.€For€the€most€part,€the€lawÏprovides€no€set€formulae€for€converting€these€legal€rules€into€layÏlanguage€--€and€the€choice€of€what€words€are€to€be€spoken€belongs,Ïwithin€wide€margins,€to€the€trial€judge."). ÃÝ ƒ–‹$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€›ÐˆdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€ ¾1 XÐXdЈd=Óà ` àÔ‡ ˆ¾1XˆˆÔ€Interstate,€moreover,€did€not€object€to€specialÐ ° Ðquestions€identifying€Brown€"d/b/a€Integra€Technical€Services"€asÏthe€counterclaimant.€Ô#†ˆ›ˆX ˆ¾1å#Ô´è\( 9Z+&Courier Regular öÝ ƒ¦k$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€p§ÐˆdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€N‚” ˆÐXdЈd=Óà ` àÔ€Nˆ‚”XˆˆÔBrown€surmises€that€the€jury€misunderstood€that€theÐ ° Ð$10,000€came€out€of€the€$75,000€deposit€and€was€not€on€top€of€it,Ïand€that€the€jury€then€subtracted€$85,000€from€the€requestedÏ$272,500€to€award€him€a€total€of€$187,500.´è\( 9Z+&Courier Regular 1Ý ƒ¦k$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€p§ÐˆdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€P‚” ˆÐXdЈd=Óà ` àÔ€Pˆ‚”XˆˆÔWe€also€reject€Interstate's€appellate€challenge€to€theÐ ° Ðadmission€of€Brown's€testimony€about€how€he€was€to€be€compensated.€ÏBrown€testified€to€his€personal€knowledge€of€compensationÏarrangements.€€It€was€well€within€the€trial€judge's€discretion€toÏadmit€that€testimony.à h à´è\( 9Z+&Courier Regular dÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ8€ Þ XXdÈdÈ8ÑÑ€ÑÓ*°,X°` ¨ ƒX°œX*ÓÓÓÓÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÓ=€ Þ XÐXdÐd=ÓÝ ƒÿÝÝ  Ýò òÔ‡°b<°ˆˆÔUnited€States€Court€of€AppealsÔ#†ˆÑ´ˆ°°b$Ž( ÐMadden€&€Barry,€P.C.óó,€were€on€brief,€for€appellee€Marc€A.€Brown.Ð %V ) ÐÌà  àòòPaul€R.€Woodóó,€with€whom€òòJames€R.€Milleróó,€òòMatthew€D.€Macyóó,€and€òòÐ –&æ!+ ÐMiller€Wood€Welch,€LLCóó,€were€on€brief,€for€appellee€Freidel'sÐ ^'®", ÐManufacturing,€Inc.Ô#† ˆÞXX XÞþ#ÔÔ‡ XÞXX ˆÞÔÐ &(v#- ÐÌÌà  àà@<< ìàòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóˆÐ ~*Î%0 Ðñä+ñà@ìì*ìàñä+ññå+ñˆÌñå+ññæ+ñà@$ìàñæ+ññç+ñJuly€6,€Ô_Ô2001ñç+ñÔ_ÔˆÌà@xx!ìàòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÓ=€ Þ XÐXd XÐXd=ÓÔ#† ˆÞXX XÞÈ #ԈР Ö,&(3æ ÐÓÑÓÑ8€ Þ ‹XdÈ XXdÈ8ÑÓ3°,X°` ˜Xÿÿ°,X‚X¨ ƒX3ÓÔ‡ XÞXX ˆÞÔÓ=€ Þ XÐXd XÐXd=Óà ` àò òòòóóLYNCH,€òòCircuit€Judgeó óóó.€€This€commercial€dispute€concernsÐ ° Ða€failed€attempt€by€the€plaintiff,€Interstate€Litho€Corporation,€toÏacquire€printing€presses€from€a€broker,€defendant€Marc€A.€Brown,Ïdoing€business€as€Integra€Technical€Services,€Inc.€€Trial€resultedÏin€a€jury€verdict€against€Interstate€on€its€claims€for€return€of€aÏportion€of€its€deposit€from€the€seller€of€one€press,€defendantÏFreidel's€Manufacturing,€Inc.,€and€for€Brown€on€his€counterclaimsÏseeking€lost€profits€on€the€deal.€€On€appeal,€Interstate€arguesÏthat:€(1)€Brown€lacked€the€capacity€to€sue€because€Integra€had€beenÏdissolved€at€the€time€of€the€transactions€at€issue;€(2)€theÏpurported€contract€with€Brown€for€purchase€of€the€presses€wasÏinvalid;€(3)€its€deposit€to€secure€the€presses€was€refundable;€andÏ(4)€the€award€of€lost€profits€resulted€from€flawed€juryÏinstructions€and€was€not€supported€by€the€evidence.€€We€affirm€theÏjudgment,€and€we€grant€Freidel's€motion,€but€deny€Brown's€motion,Ïfor€attorney's€fees€and€double€costs€against€Interstate.€Ìò òÓ  ÓI.ó óÐ P  ÐÓ{Óà ` àIn€1995,€Interstate€Litho€Corporation€enÔ#† ˆ¾1XX X¾1î #Ôgaged€inÐ à0" Ðnegotiations€with€Marc€A.€Brown,€a€broker€in€used€printingÏequipment,€and€his€company,€Integra€Technical€Services,€concerningÏInterstateððs€potential€acquisition€of€two€used€printing€presses.€ÏOne€press,€an€eight€color€press,€was€owned€by€FreidelððsÏManufacturing,€Inc.€of€Illinois;€the€other,€a€four€color€press,€wasÏowned€by€Graphic€Engineering€and€located€in€Malaysia.€€The€twoÏpresses€were€to€be€refurbished€in€Rhode€Island€by€E.R.€SmithÏAssociates€to€Interstateððs€specifications.Ð `,°'2 Ðà ` àSeveral€proposals€were€prepared,€and€finally€a€proposalÏreflecting€a€$2.6€million€price€was€signed€by€Henry€Becker,ÏInterstateððs€President,€on€August€25,€1995.€€At€Brown'sÏinstructions,€Interstate€advanced€a€$75,000€deposit€to€ensure€thatÏthe€presses€would€be€held.€€Fifty€thousand€dollars€of€the€depositÏwas€wired€to€Freidel's€on€August€29,€1995,€to€secure€the€eightÏcolor€press;€the€remaining€$25,000€was€sent€to€Brown€in€hisÏcapacity€as€Integra's€principal€(of€which€$15,000€was€forwarded€toÏJohn€Dulla,€a€broker€assisting€Brown€with€the€purchase€of€a€secondÏpress,€the€remainder€staying€with€Brown).€€Freidel's€pulled€theÏeight€color€press€off€the€market,€turning€away€other€prospectiveÏbuyers.€€On€September€27,€1995,€Brown€signed€a€contract€to€buy€theÏeight€color€press€from€Freidel's.€€€However,€Brown€never€purchasedÏthe€press€from€Freidel's€because€the€deal€with€Interstate€fellÏapart.€€Freidel's€retained€the€deposit€and€eventually€sold€theÏpress€for€less€than€it€would€have€received€from€Brown.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€ò ò€ó óÐ  p Ðà ` àInterstate€then€sued€Brown,€Integra,€and€Freidel's,Ïseeking€the€return€of€its€$75,000€deposit.€€Integra€counterclaimedÏfor€its€lost€commissions€and€profits€on€the€deal,€asserting€claimsÏagainst€Interstate€for€breach€of€contract,€fraud,€and€violation€ofÏMass.€Gen.€Laws€ch.€93A.€€Cross„motions€for€summary€judgment€wereÏfiled€by€the€parties.€€Brown€argued€that€Interstate€had€failed€toÏprovide€evidence€to€allow€a€jury€to€pierce€the€corporate€veil€andÐ `'°", Ðhold€him€personally€liable€as€an€officer€of€Integra.€€BrownÏasserted€that€at€all€times€he€had€acted€in€his€representativeÏcapacity€as€an€agent€of€Integra€and€that€nothing€in€the€recordÏindicated€otherwise.€€Interstate€initially€opposed€Brown's€summaryÏjudgment€motion€on€the€grounds€that€there€was€sufficient€evidenceÏthat€Brown,€as€Integra's€only€shareholder,€officer,€and€director,Ïhad€pervasive€control€over€the€corporation,€and€that€BrownÏmaintained€no€separation€between€the€corporation€and€his€home,Ïwhere€the€corporation€exclusively€operated.€€Ìà ` àInterstate€subsequently€learned€that€Integra€had€beenÏdissolved€by€the€State€of€New€Hampshire€as€of€November€1,€1993,€forÏfailure€to€file€reports€and€pay€necessary€fees.€€Interstate€arguedÏthat€because€Brown€had€held€himself€out€and€solicited€businessÏunder€Integra's€name€after€the€corporation€had€been€dissolved,ÏBrown€was€personally€liable€as€to€Interstate's€claims€againstÏIntegra.€€Interstate€also€maintained€that€Integra€had€no€capacityÏto€assert€any€counterclaims€against€it.€€Ìà ` àIn€response,€Brown€sought€leave€to€amend€hisÏcounterclaims€and€substitute€himself€personally€for€Integra€as€theÏreal€party€in€interest.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Brown€recalled€receiving€letters€from€theÐ `"°& Ðcorporate€division€of€New€Hampshire's€Department€of€State,€butÏbelieved€he€had€taken€the€necessary€steps€to€prevent€dissolution.ÏHe€said€that€he€was€not€aware€of€Integra's€dissolution€at€the€timeÐ '`", Ðof€the€transactions€at€issue€and€did€not€learn€about€theÏdissolution€until€Interstate€raised€the€issue€on€summary€judgment.Ìà ` àThe€district€court€denied€all€the€summary€judgmentÏmotions€as€well€as€Brown's€motion€to€amend€and€substitute€himselfÏpersonally€for€Integra.€€However,€upon€motion€for€reconsideration,Ïthe€court€allowed€Brown's€motion€to€amend€and€substitute€himself€asÏthe€real€party€in€interest.ò òó óÐ `  Ðà ` àAt€trial,€Interstate's€principal€claim€was€that€BeckerÏhad€not€signed€the€purported€contract€for€the€sale€of€the€presses.€ÏThere€was€a€battle€of€handwriting€experts,€and€the€jury€rejectedÏInterstateððs€suggestion€that€Becker's€signature€had€been€forged.€ÏAnswering€three€special€interrogatories,€the€jury€rejectedÏInterstateððs€claim€for€the€return€of€the€deposit€and€awarded€BrownÏ$187,500€on€his€counterclaim;€the€$50,000€portion€of€the€depositÏthus€remained€with€Freidel's.€€Specifically,€the€jury€determinedÏthat:€(1)€Marc€A.€Brown€d/b/a€Integra€and€Interstate€Litho€did€òònotóóÐ  p Ðform€a€contract€providing€that€monies€paid€by€Interstate€as€aÏdeposit€were€refundable;€(2)€Freidel's€did€òònotóó€have€money€in€itsÐ @" Ðhands€belonging€to€Interstate€that€in€equity€and€good€conscience€itÏought€to€pay€back€to€Interstate;€and€(3)€Interstate€was€in€òòbreachóóÐ `"°& Ðof€its€contract€with€Brown€for€the€sale€of€two€printing€presses.ò òó óÐ ð#@( ÐInterstate's€motion€for€a€new€trial€was€denied.ò òÐ €%Ð * ÐÓ  ÓII.ó óÐ '`", ÐÓ&Óà ` àInterstate€appeals,€raising€a€plethora€of€arguments,€manyÏâ âaddressed€to€the€district€courtððs€pre„trial€and€post„trialÐ €*Ð%0 Ðrulings.׃%×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€ò òó ó€Most€of€those€issues€are€subsumed€into€the€contractÐ ° Ðâ âquestions€submitted€to€the€jury.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Interstate€initially€makesÐ @ Ðrelated€arguments€as€to€capacity€to€sue:€that€Brown€should€not€haveÏbeen€substituted€for€Integra€as€a€counterclaim€plaintiff€and€thatÏthere€was€no€valid€and€enforceable€contract€between€Brown€andÏInterstate€because€Integra's€dissolution€rendered€any€subsequentÏcontract€with€Interstate€void.€€Interstate€also€argues€that€thereÏwas€no€enforceable€contract€because€the€purported€contract€„„€theÏAugust€25,€1995€proposal€signed€by€Interstate€„„€did€not€containÏthe€contract's€essential€terms,€failed€to€comply€with€the€statuteÏof€frauds,€and€could€not€have€been€performed€by€Brown.€€InÏaddition,€Interstate€maintains€that€there€was€insufficient€evidenceÏfor€the€jury€to€reject€its€claim€for€return€of€its€$75,000€deposit.€Ìà ` àAs€to€damages,€Interstate€argues€that€Brown's€damageÏaward€cannot€stand€because€it€was€based€on€speculation,€not€factsÏin€evidence,€and€because€the€district€court€failed€to€properlyÏinstruct€the€jury€in€this€regard.€€Ìà ` àFreidel's€ò òó óhas€filed€a€motion€for€attorney's€fees€andÐ @" Ðâ âdouble€costs€on€the€ground€that€Interstate's€appeal€was€frivolous.€Ð Ð $ ÐBrown€has€filed€a€similar€motion.€€Interstate€has€filed€oppositionsÏto€both€motions.Ìâ âà ` àThe€parties€agree€that€Massachusetts€law€applies.ÌòòA.€Capacity€to€SueóóÐ ` ° Ðà ` àInterstate€on€appeal€makes€a€series€of€arguments€aboutÏcapacity€to€sue.€€In€doing€so,€it€confuses€two€issues.€€The€firstÏissue€is€whether€the€district€court€abused€its€discretion€byÏallowing€the€motion€to€amend€in€order€to€substitute€Brown€forÏIntegra.€€The€second€issue€is€whether,€given€that€the€amendment€wasÏallowed,€Brown€properly€stood€in€Integra's€shoes€as€a€matter€ofÏfact.€€As€to€the€second€issue,€it€has€been€waived€becauseÏInterstate€failed€to€make€it€an€issue€before€the€jury.Ìà ` àOn€the€first€issue,€we€review€the€allowance€or€denial€ofÏmotions€to€amend€the€pleadings€for€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòRuizóóÐ P Ðv.€òòPosadas€de€San€Juan€Assocs.óó,€124€F.3d€243,€250€n.11€(1st€Cir.Ð à Ð1997)òòóó;€òòResolution€Trust€Corp.óóv.€òòGoldóó,€30€F.3d€251,€253€(1st€Cir.Ð  p Ð1994).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Motions€for€leave€to€amend€"shall€be€freely€given€whenÐ °  Ðjustice€so€requires."€€òòóóFed.€R.€Civ.€P.€15(a);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòResolutionÐ @" ÐTrustóó,€30€F.3d€at€253€("Leave€to€amend€is€to€be€freely€given,Ð Ð $ Ðunless€it€would€be€futile,€or€reward,€inter€alia,€undue€or€intendedÏdelay.")€(internal€quotation€marks€and€citations€omitted).€€Here,ÏBrown€sought€to€substitute€himself€personally€for€Integra€on€theÏground€that€he€was€the€real€party€in€interest,€Integra€having€beenÐ '`", Ðdissolved€by€operation€of€law€before€the€events€in€issue.€€òòSeeóó€Fed.Ð ° ÐR.€Civ.€P.€€17(a)€("Every€action€shall€be€prosecuted€in€the€name€ofÏthe€real€party€in€interest.").€€Brown€maintained€that€at€all€timesÏrelevant€he€was€Integra's€sole€officer,€employee,€and€shareholder,Ïand€that€he€participated€personally€and€directly€in€allÏtransactions€with€Interstate.Ìà ` àThe€district€court€had€before€it€conflicting€accounts€ofÏthe€events€surrounding€Integra's€dissolution.€€Interstate€saidÏBrown€knew€or€should€have€known€that€Integra€had€already€beenÏdissolved€for€almost€two€years€when€it€entered€into€discussionsÏabout€the€presses;€Brown€claimed€that€he€believed€Integra€hadÏcomplied€with€New€Hampshire's€requirements€on€reporting€and€filingÏfees,€and€that€he€was€a€real€party€in€interest.€€The€court€couldÏeasily€have€concluded€that€Brown€had€more€than€a€colorable€claim,Ïand€it€had€evidentiary€support€for€that€conclusion.ò òó ó€€As€aÐ à Ðcounterclaim€plaintiff,€Brown€appeared€to€have€the€requisite€stake.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòSeckleróó€v.€òòStar€Enter.óó,€124€F.3d€1399,€1406€(11th€Cir.€1997)Ð °  Ð("In€order€for€[plaintiff]€to€demonstrate€that€he€is€a€real€partyÏin€interest,€[he]€must€allege€facts€sufficient€to€reveal€that€heÏsuffered€an€injury,€that€the€injury€was€caused€by€the€defendant'sÏillegal€conduct,€and€that€his€injury€could€be€redressed€by€aÏfavorable€outcome€to€the€lawsuit.").€€Ìà ` àBrown€also€was€substituted€as€a€defendant,€and€thisÏbenefitted€Interstate;€Interstate€now€had€a€live€person,€and€not€aÏdefunct€corporation,€to€answer€for€any€judgment€it€obtained.€ÏInterstate€attacks€the€allowance€of€the€substitution€motion,€but€itÐ À+'2 Ðdoes€not€identify€any€prejudice€resulting€from€that€decision.ÏIndeed,€Interstate's€trial€preparation€on€the€merits€issues€couldÏhardly€have€been€much€different€given€its€view,€expressed€in€itsÏopposition€to€Brown's€motion€for€summary€judgment,€that€Brown€wasÏIntegra's€alter€ego.€€The€trial€court€properly€concluded€that€itÏwas€in€the€interests€of€justice€for€Brown€to€be€substituted€as€theÏformal€party€in€the€pleadings.€€òòSeeóó€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€17€advisoryÐ `  Ðcommittee's€note€(1966€Amendment)€("Modern€decisions€are€inclinedÏto€be€lenient€when€an€honest€mistake€has€been€made€in€choosing€theÏparty€in€whose€name€the€action€is€to€be€filed€.€.€.€.").Ìà ` àFollowing€the€district€court's€decision€to€allow€Brown'sÏmotion€to€amend€and€substitute,€any€questions€as€to€whether€BrownÏwas€indeed€a€proper€party€to€the€purported€contract€with€InterstateÏwere€questions€of€fact€for€the€jury.€€òòSeeóó€òòAssocs.€Discount€Corp.óó€v.Ð P ÐòòHaynes€Garage,€Inc.óó,€24€N.E.2d€685,€687„88€(Mass.€1939)€(questionÐ à Ðof€who€contracting€parties€were€is€question€of€fact)€(citing€òòLunnÐ  p Ð&€Sweet€Co.óó€v.€òòWolfmanóó,€152€N.E.€893,€894„95€(Mass.€1926))òòóó.€€If,Ð °  Ðafter€the€substitution,€Interstate€wanted€to€challenge€BrownððsÏcapacity€to€sue€or€raise€any€issue€of€fraudulent€concealment€byÏBrown€of€Integra's€dissolved€status,€it€should€have€done€so€beforeÏthe€jury.€€Interstate€did€not.€€Rather,€its€focus€at€trial€wasÏsolely€on€other€matters:€contesting€Brown's€claim€that€Becker€hadÏsigned€the€August€25,€1995€proposal;€trying€to€prove€the€$75,000Ïâ âdeposit€was€refundable;€and€challenging€Brown's€own€claims€forÐ  (ð#. Ðdamages.׃K×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Interstate€may€not€now€pursue€these€claims€aboutÐ ° Ðâ âcapacity€to€sue€on€appeal.€€òòÐ @ ÐB.€Brownððs€Counterclaim€For€Breach€of€ContractóóÐ Ð  Ðà ` àInterstate€challenges€the€jury's€verdict€on€Brown'sÏcounterclaims€for€breach€of€contract€to€purchase€the€two€presses.€ÏThere€could€be€no€contract€between€Interstate€and€Brown€d/b/aÏIntegra€as€a€matter€of€law,€Interstate€argues,׃Fè×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€because:Ð `  Ð1.€€The€essential€terms€were€missing€from€the€purported€contract€„„Ïthe€August€25,€1995€proposal.Ì2.€€The€proposal€did€not€satisfy€the€statute€of€frauds.Ì3.€The€proposal€was€invalid€because€Brown€was€incapable€ofÏdelivering€the€two€presses.Ìà ` àInterstate€also€seeks€the€return€of€its€$75,000€deposit,Ïarguing€that€there€was€an€express€oral€agreement€with€Brown€thatÏthe€deposit€was€refundable.€€In€addition,€Interstate€argues€thatÏFreidel's€should€return€the€$50,000€portion€of€the€deposit€itÏretained€under€the€law€of€equity€and€unjust€enrichment.€€The€trialÏcourt€erred,€Interstate€says,€in€not€granting€it€judgment€as€aÏmatter€of€law€at€the€close€of€evidence€and€after€the€jury'sÏverdict.€€òòSeeóóFed.€R.€Civ.€P.€50(b).׃'Ð×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð `"°& Ðà ` àThis€court€reviews€de€novo€the€denial€of€a€motion€forÏjudgment€as€a€matter€of€law€using€the€same€standard€applied€by€theÏtrial€court.€€òòAndradeóó€v.€òòJamestown€Hous.€Auth.óó,€82€F.3d€1179,€1186Ð Ð  Ð(1st€Cir.€1996).€€Such€motion€may€be€granted€only€if€"the€evidence,Ïviewed€from€the€perspective€most€favorable€to€the€non„movant,€is€soÏone„sided€that€the€movant€is€plainly€entitled€to€judgment,€forÏreasonable€minds€could€not€differ€as€to€the€outcome."€€òòFHS€Props.Ð `  ÐLtd.óó€v.€òòBC€Assocs.óó,€175€F.3d€81,€85€(1st€Cir.€1999)€(quoting€òòGibsonóóÐ  ð  Ðv.€òòCity€of€Cranstonóó,€37€F.3d€731,€735€(1st€Cir.€1994)).Ð 0€  Ðòò1.€Essential€Terms€of€Contract€Were€ProvidedóóÐ À Ðà ` àThe€evidence€was€such€that€whether€the€August€25,€1995Ïproposal€contained€the€essential€terms€of€a€contract€was€an€issueÏof€fact€for€the€jury.€€The€writing€between€the€parties€identifiedÏin€detail€the€two€presses€being€purchased,€identified€a€total€priceÏfor€purchasing€and€reworking€the€presses€($2.6€million,€withÏ$900,000€of€this€amount€allocated€to€acquiring€the€two€presses),Ïand€set€forth€a€detailed€delivery€and€payment€schedule.€€Ô‡ X¾1XX ˆ¾1ÔÐ °  Ðà ` àInterstate€argues,€inter€alia,€that€the€proposal€neitherÏstates€that€it€is€a€final€agreement€for€purchase€of€the€two€pressesÏby€Interstate€from€Integra€nor€provides€in€specific€terms€theÐ `"°& Ðcompletion€date€for€refurbishment€of€the€presses.€€However,€"[i]tÏis€not€required€that€all€terms€of€the€agreement€be€preciselyÏspecified,€and€the€presence€of€undefined€or€unspecified€terms€willÏnot€necessarily€preclude€the€formation€of€a€binding€contract."Ô#† ˆ¾1XX X¾1L#ԀР` ° ÐòòÔ‡ X¾1XX ˆ¾1ÔSituation€Mgmt.€Sys.óó€v.€òòMalouf,€Inc.òòóó,€óó724€N.E.2d€699,€703€(Mass.Ð ð @ Ð2000).€€Here,€the€terms€of€the€proposal€„„€which€include€nine€pagesÏof€nitty„gritty€detail€on€matters€such€as€rollers€and€hangers,Ïplate€and€blanket€cylinders,€and€ink€fountains€„„€were€sufficientÏfor€the€jury€to€find€that€Interstate€had€agreed€to€purchase€the€twoÏpresses.Ô#† ˆ¾1XX X¾1NN#Ô€€That€Interstate€wired€$75,000€($50,000€to€Freidel's€andÐ ` Ð$25,000€to€Brown)€to€hold€the€presses€on€August€29,€just€a€few€daysÏafter€signing€the€proposal,€further€supports€the€existence€of€aÏfirm€agreement€between€the€parties.€€€We€cannot€conclude€as€aÏmatter€of€law€that€this€contract€lacked€essential€terms.€€Ìòò2.€Statute€of€FraudsóóÐ à0 Ðà ` àInterstate€argues€that€the€proposal€does€not€satisfy€theÏMassachusetts€Statute€of€Frauds,€Mass.€Gen.€Laws€ch.€106,€ðð€2„¼201(1),€because€the€August€25,€1995€proposal,€though€a€writing,Ïdescribes€only€the€remanufacturing€portion€of€the€deal,€and€not€theÏterms€of€the€actual€purchase€of€the€two€presses€by€Integra,€forÏsubsequent€sale€to€Interstate.€€There€was,€however,€no€reason€theÏproposal€had€to€describe€the€details€of€Brown's€own€purchase€of€theÏeight€color€press€from€Freidel's€or€the€four€color€press€fromÏMalaysia.€€Indeed,€the€important€questions€for€a€buyer€likeÏInterstate€would,€presumably,€have€centered€on€whether€theÏrefurbished€presses€met€its€needs€and€specifications,€and€not€onÐ ,`'2 Ðthe€background€details€of€how€the€broker€(Brown)€obtained€thoseÏpresses€from€third€parties.€€As€Brown€himself€testified,€hisÏinitial€acquisition€of€the€presses€was€accomplished€throughÏtransactions€separate€and€distinct€from€the€sale€of€the€refurbishedÏpresses€to€Interstate.€€ò òó óThus€the€issue,€properly€presented€to€theÐ ð @ Ðjury,€was€whether€the€August€25,€1995€proposal€constituted€anÏagreement€by€Interstate€to€purchase€the€two€presses€from€Brown.€ÏThe€jury€found€that€it€did,€and€so€the€proposal€was€a€writing€inÏsatisfaction€of€the€Statute€of€Frauds.Ìòò3.€Brown€Could€Have€Delivered€the€Two€PressesóóÐ À Ðà ` àInterstate€also€challenges€the€validity€of€the€contractÏon€the€ground€that€Brown€was€incapable€of€delivering€the€twoÏpresses€when€Interstate€signed€the€August€25,€1995€proposal.€€òòSeeóóÐ pÀ ÐòòDoyleóó€v.€òòHasbro,€Inc.óó,€103€F.3d€186,€194€(1st€Cir.€1996)€(plaintiffÐ P Ðmust€be€ready,€willing,€and€able€to€perform€to€sustain€breach€ofÏcontract€claim);€òòSingarellaóó€v.€òòCity€of€Bostonóó,€173€N.E.2d€290,€291Ð  p Ð(Mass.€1961).€€Again,€this€issue€was€for€the€jury.Ìà ` àInterstate€argues€that€there€was€no€evidence€of€anyÏagreement€to€purchase€the€four€color€press€from€Malaysia,€thatÏIntegra€had€not€yet€entered€into€an€agreement€to€purchase€the€eightÏcolor€press€from€Freidel's,€and€that€Integra€had€not€entered€intoÏany€agreement€with€E.R.€Smith€for€refurbishing€the€two€presses.€€InÏfact,€there€was€sufficient€evidence€for€the€jury€to€conclude€thatÏa€deal€was€in€the€works€and€that€Brown€could€have€delivered€the€twoÏrefurbished€presses€to€Interstate.€€Brown€testified€to€hisÏextensive€efforts€to€locate€and€hold€the€presses,€one€of€which€hadÐ À+'2 Ðalready€been€secured€from€Freidel's€(hence€the€need€for€the€$50,000Ïdeposit).€€Dulla€testified€about€his€efforts€to€obtain€a€secondÏpress€in€Malaysia,€which€was€corroborated€by€his€correspondenceÏwith€the€owner€of€the€Malaysian€press€about€price,€shippingÏarrangements,€and€the€like.€€Brown€also€testified€that€he€had€aÏverbal€agreement€with€E.R.€Smith€to€refurbish€the€two€presses€toÏInterstate's€specifications,€based€on€discussions€and€meetings€withÏrepresentatives€of€E.R.€Smith€and€Interstate.€€Brown€did€not€needÏfully€executed€written€contracts€with€each€of€the€parties€he€wasÏdealing€with€on€the€Interstate€project.€€Indeed,€there€was€evidenceÏthat€it€was€customary€not€to€have€such€contracts€in€these€types€ofÏdeals.€€Whether€Brown€could€have€performed€under€the€contract€wasÏfor€the€jury€to€decide.ÌòòÓÓ4.€Whether€the€Deposit€was€RefundableóóÐ P ÐÌÓ‡^Óà ` àInterstate€seeks€the€return€of€its€$75,000€deposit,Ïarguing€that€there€was€an€express€oral€agreement€with€Brown€thatÏthe€deposit€was€refundable.ñÙ+ñ׃×ñÙ+ññÙ+ñ׃5×ñÙ+ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€jury€rejected€this€claim.€€BrownÐ °  Ðtestified€that€he€told€Interstate's€Becker,€before€Becker€paid€theÏdeposit,€that€the€deposit€was€not€refundable.€€Brown's€testimonyÏwas€supported€by€the€testimony€of€Daniel€Freidel,€Freidel'sÏpresident,€and€John€Dulla€that€Freidel's€needed€a€deposit€fromÏBrown€to€hold€the€eight€color€press.€€ò òó óThat€Freidel's€took€the€pressÐ €%Ð * Ðoff€the€market€in€exchange€for€the€deposit,€a€fact€not€disputed€atÐ '`", Ðtrial,€further€supported€the€jury's€determination.€€There€is€noÏreason€to€disturb€the€jury's€finding€on€this€claim.€€ò òó óÐ @ ÐòòC.€Damages:€Jury€Instructions€and€EvidenceóóÐ Ð  Ðà ` àInterstate€argues€that€the€court€erred€in€rejecting€itsÏproposed€jury€instruction€on€damages€and€that€the€evidence€was€too€Ïspeculative€to€support€the€jury's€damage€award.€€InterstateÏrequests€a€new€trial€or€a€remititur.€€Ìòò1.€Jury€InstructionsóóÐ  ð  Ðà ` àThe€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€that:ÌÓÓà0 ` àIf€you€find€that€.€.€.€[Brown€and€Integra]€are€entitled€Ïto€recover,€recover€under€the€counterclaim,€then€you€areÏto€award€as€damages€a€sum€of€money€that€will€fully€andÏfairly€compensate€Mr.€Brown€for€what€he€would€haveÏreceived€in€income€if€the€contract€had€not€been€breached.Ïò òó óà ¸ àÐ ` (#` (# ÐÓÓInterstate€asked€for€a€specific€instruction€that€the€jury€shouldÏnot€speculate€and€that€the€loss€should€be€foreseeable€andÏcalculated€with€reasonable€certainty.ñÛ+ñ׃9×ñÛ+ññÛ+ñ׃8×ñÛ+ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€trial€court€said€itsÐ à Ðinstruction€essentially€amounted€to€the€same€thing.ò òó ó€€At€that€point,Ð  p ÐInterstate€neither€disagreed€with€the€judge€that€the€essence€of€theÏinstruction€had€in€fact€òònotóó€been€given€nor€pressed€its€objection.€òòóóÐ @" ÐWe€are€doubtful€that€Interstate€adequately€gave€the€trial€judgeÏnotice€and€preserved€its€objection.ò òó ó€€òòSeeóó€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€51;€òòseeÐ `"°& Ðalsoóó€òòElgabrióó€v.€òòLekasóó,€964€F.2d€1255,€1258„59€(1st€Cir.€1992).€€ò ò€ó óÐ ð#@( Ðà ` àMoreover,€the€issue€with€respect€to€lost€profits€in€thisÐ Ð% !* Ðcase,€as€explained€more€fully€below,€was€not€whether€the€jury€wouldÏimproperly€speculate€in€awarding€a€sum€based€on€its€projectionsÏfrom€data€in€evidence,€but€rather€whether€it€believed€Brown€hadÏagreements€in€place€for€commissions€on€the€deal,€ultimately€aÏcredibility€question€not€open€to€any€such€speculation.€€A€trialÏjudge,€who€possesses€particular€insight€into€the€main€issues€in€aÏcase,€does€not€have€an€obligation€to€instruct€a€jury€on€everyÏnuance€of€a€party's€claim€or€defense.ñÝ+ñ׃"×ñÝ+ññÝ+ñ׃J×ñÝ+ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ò ò€ó ó€Given€that€the€wording€ofÐ  ð  Ðinstructions€is€within€the€trial€judge's€discretion,€and€given€thatÏhere€the€trial€judge€could€reasonably€have€understood€thatÏInterstate€agreed€that€his€instruction€covered€the€lost€profitsÏissue,€we€find€no€error.Ìòò2.€EvidenceóóÐ À Ðà ` àInterstate€argues€that€the€damage€award€is€inconsistentÏwith€the€evidence€and€must€have€been€based€on€pure€conjecture.€€OnÏthis€basis,€Interstate€argues,€the€district€court€erred€in€failingÏto€grant€a€new€trial€or€remititur.€€Ìà ` àA€motion€for€a€new€trial€requires€a€finding€that€"theÏverdict€is€so€seriously€mistaken,€so€clearly€against€the€law€or€theÐ  !p$ Ðevidence,€as€to€constitute€a€miscarriage€of€justice."€€òòTransamericaÐ ° ÐPremier€Ins.óó€v.€òòOberóó,€107€F.3d€925,€929€(1st€Cir.€1997)€(internalÐ @ Ðquotation€marks€omitted).€€We€review€the€district€court's€denial€ofÏa€new€trial€motion€for€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòFHS€Props.óó,€175Ð ` ° ÐF.3d€at€87.€Ìà ` àInterstate€argues,€inter€alia,€that€Brown's€testimony€asÏto€acquisition€costs€and€mark„up€on€the€two€presses€was€notÏsupported€by€the€evidence€and€also€did€not€make€allowance€for€theÏcosts€of€transporting€the€presses.€€There€was€also€no€evidence,ÏInterstate€contends,€that€Brown€had€the€ability€to€procure€the€fourÏcolor€press€from€Malaysia,€as€there€was€no€signed€agreement€for€theÏpurchase€of€this€press.€€However,€the€jury€was€entitled,€on€theÏevidence,€to€find€to€the€contrary.€€Correspondence€with€the€ownerÏof€the€four€color€press€as€to€pricing,€shipping,€and€other€basicÏcontractual€provisions€was€in€evidence.€€ò òó óTwo€other€witnessesÐ à Ðsupported€Brownððs€testimony€that€he€had€made€the€necessaryÏarrangements€and€that€the€deal€foundered€on€Interstateððs€failure€toÏpay.Ìà ` àBrown€testified€as€to€the€compensation€he€expected€toÏreceive:€ten€percent€of€E.R.€Smith's€$1.7€million€price€toÏrefurbish€the€two€presses€($170,000),ò òó ó€plus€half€of€the€mark„up€costÐ ð#@( Ðof€$225,000€for€acquisition€of€the€two€presses€($112,500),€for€aÏtotal€of€$282,500.€€ò òó óFrom€this€Brown€subtracted€the€$10,000€he€hadÐ '`", Ðâ âretained€from€the€$75,000€deposit€and€requested€a€total€ofÐ  (ð#. Ð$272,500.€€The€jury€awarded€him€$187,500.ñß+ñ׃×ñß+ññß+ñ׃M×ñß+ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Interstate€presentedÐ ° Ðâ âno€reason€not€to€credit€Brown's€testimony,€and€that€testimonyÏsupplied€an€adequate€basis€for€the€jury's€damage€award.€€òòCf.óóÐ Ð  ÐòòKnightsbridge€Marketing€Servs.óó€v.€òòPromociones€y€Proyectos,€S.A.óó,Ð ` ° Ð728€F.2d€572,€575€(1st€Cir.€1984)€("The€prospective€profits€needÏnot€be€proved€with€mathematical€accuracy;€the€plaintiff€need€onlyÏshow€by€reasonable€proof€that€he€has€lost€profits.")€(citation€andÏinternal€quotation€marks€omitted).ñá+ñ׃$°×ñá+ññá+ñ׃O°×ñá+ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð  ð  Ðà ` àInterstate€also€argues€that€it€cannot€be€held€liable€forÏpayments€Brown€would€have€received€from€others,€but€that€argumentÏfinds€no€support€in€the€law.€€A€seller€may€recover€lost€profitsÏthat€he€would€have€made€had€the€buyer€performed€under€the€contract.€ÏòòSeeóó€Mass.€Gen.€Laws€ch.€106,€ðð€2„708(2);òòóó€òòCesco€Mfg.€Corp.óó€v.Ð pÀ ÐòòNorcross,€Inc.óó,€391€N.E.2d€270,€274€(Mass.€App.€Ct.€1979).€€€WhereÐ P Ða€middleman€broker€is€involved,€and€the€buyer€is€in€breach,€theÏbrokerððs€damages€may€be€measured€by€his€lost€profits.€òòóó€òòSeeóó€67A€òòAm.Ð  p ÐJur.€2dóó,€Sales€ðð€1129€(2d€ed.€1985€and€Supp.€2000)€("The€UniformÐ °  ÐCommercial€Code€follows€the€view€that€a€.€.€.€middleman€should€haveÏas€a€measure€of€damages€his€lost€profits€where€the€buyer€hasÏbreached.");€òòsee€alsoóó€òòTCP€Indus.,€Inc.óó€v.€òòUniroyal,€Inc.óó,€661€F.2dÐ `"°& Ð542,€552€(6th€Cir.€1981)€(explaining€the€rationale€for€the€ruleÏunder€Michigan€law).€€ò òó óThe€jury's€damage€award€stands.Ð @ ÐòòÓÓD.€Motions€for€Attorney's€Fees€and€Double€Costsóó.Ð Ð  ÐÌòò1.€Freidel's€MotionóóÐ ` ° ÐÌÓZ|Óà ` àIn€order€to€prevail€on€appeal€against€Freidel's,ÏInterstate€effectively€had€to€show€in€this€fact„intensive€case€thatÏno€rational€jury€could€have€concluded€that€the€$50,000€portion€ofÏthe€deposit€paid€to€Freidel's€was€non„refundable€and€that€it€wasÏequitable€for€Freidel's€to€retain€it.€€It€was€undisputed€at€trialÏthat€Interstate€knew€Freidel's€took€the€eight€color€press€off€theÏmarket€in€exchange€for€the€deposit€and€suffered€a€detriment€as€aÏresult.€€It€was€also€undisputed€that€Freidel's€was€not€a€party€toÏthe€contract€between€Brown€and€Interstate€and€had€no€businessÏrelationship€with€Interstate.€€Ìà ` àBecause€Interstate's€claims€against€Freidel's€were€inÏequity€and€unjust€enrichment,€Interstate€had€to€prove€thatÏFreidel's€had€no€right€to€retain€the€deposit,€regardless€of€theÏoutcome€of€Interstate's€underlying€contract€dispute€with€Brown.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòNational€Shawmut€Bankóó€v.€òòFidelity€Mut.€Ins.€Co.óó,€61€N.E.2d€18,Ð Ð $ Ð22€(Mass.€1945)€("The€fundamental€question€.€.€.€is€whether€theÏdefendant€has€received€money€which€in€equity€and€good€conscienceÏbelongs€to€the€plaintiff.");€òòsee€alsoóó€òòFloweróó€v.€òòSuburban€Land€Co.óó,Ð €%Ð * Ð123€N.E.2d€218,€221€(Mass.€1954)€("[T]he€right€to€recover€in€anÏaction€for€money€had€and€received€does€not€depend€upon€privity€ofÏcontract,€but€on€the€obligation€to€restore€that€which€the€lawÏimplies€should€be€returned,€where€one€is€unjustly€enriched€atÐ À+'2 Ðanother's€expense.")€(internal€quotation€marks€omitted).€€In€lightÏof€the€undisputed€fact€that€Freidel's€conferred€a€benefit€uponÏInterstate€and€incurred€a€detriment€as€a€result,€restitution€wouldÏhave€been€improper.€€òòCf.óó€òòNational€Shawmut€Bankóó,€61€N.E.2d€at€20„21.Ð ` ° Ðà ` àEven€the€authorities€Interstate€cites€in€its€briefÏundermine€its€position,€suggesting€instead€that€Interstate€mustÏseek€recovery€of€its€deposit€from€Brown,€not€Freidel's,€becauseÏInterstate€made€the€deposit€to€Freidel's€pursuant€to€its€agreementÏwith€Brown.€€òòSeeóó€òòBolenóó€v.€òòParagon€Plasticsóó,€747€F.€Supp.€103,€107Ð 0€  Ð(D.€Mass.€1990)€("[A]€person€who€has€conferred€a€benefit€uponÏanother€as€the€performance€of€a€contract€with€a€third€person€is€notÏentitled€to€restitution€from€the€other€merely€because€of€theÏfailure€of€performance€by€the€third€person.")€(quoting€òòRestatementÐ pÀ Ð(Second)€of€Restitutionóó€ðð€115));€òòLaChanceóó€v.€òòRigolióó,€91€N.E.2d€204,Ð P Ð205€(Mass.€1950)€("The€contracting€party€must€look€for€payment€toÏthe€one€.€.€.€who€was€expected€to€pay€and€who€in€fact€expected€toÏpay€or€as€a€reasonable€man€should€have€expected€to€pay.").€€WeÏaward€Freidel's€its€reasonable€attorney's€fees€and€double€costs.€ò òó óÐ @" ÐòòSeeóó€Fed.€R.€App.€P.€38;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòToscanoóó€v.€òòChandris,€S.A.óó,€934Ð Ð $ ÐF.2d€383,€387€(1st€€Cir.€1991);€òòE.H.€Ashley€&€Co.óó€v.€òòWells€FargoÐ `"°& ÐAlarm€Servs.óó,€907€F.2d€1274,€1280€(1st€Cir.€1990).€€Ð ð#@( Ðòò2.€Brown's€MotionóóÐ €%Ð * Ðà ` àWe€feel€differently,€however,€about€Brown's€motion€forÏattorney's€fees€and€double€costs.€€While€weak,€Interstate's€claimsÏagainst€Brown€cannot€be€said€to€be€frivolous.Ìò òÓ  Óñã+ñÐ À+'2 Ðñã+ñIII.ÌÓô‰Óó óà ` àThe€judgment€is€òòaffirmedóó.òòóó€€Attorney's€fees€and€doubleÐ à Ðcosts€to€be€awarded€to€Freidel's.€€Brown's€motion€for€attorney'sÏfees€and€double€costs€is€denied.€€Freidel's€shall€file€itsÏattorney's€fees€application€in€accordance€with€Local€Rule€39(b)€ofÏthe€First€Circuit€Court€of€Appeals.€€The€Clerk€shall€tax,€in€theÏusual€course,€ordinary€costs€in€favor€of€Brown€and€double€costs€inÏfavor€of€Freidel's.€€We€retain€appellate€jurisdiction€for€theÏpurposes€of€adjudicating€the€attorney's€fees€award.€€òòSo€orderedóó.