Griffith v. Clear Lakes Trout Co., Inc.

Trout grower Griffith (plaintiff) and hatchery Clear Lakes Trout (defendant) contracted for Clear Lakes to supply small trout for Griffith to grow to "market size" and sell back for Clear Lakes's customers, with continuous, uniform monthly deliveries contemplated; for three years, Clear Lakes consistently accepted trout weighing about one pound live weight, but after 2001 its customers began demanding larger fish, and Clear Lakes started accepting deliveries later and in smaller quantities, causing overcrowding, stress, and increased mortality in Griffith's ponds until Griffith eventually refused further shipments and the contract ended. Griffith sued for lost profits and increased expenses; Clear Lakes argued no contract existed at all because the parties disagreed about what "market size" meant, and the trial court awarded Griffith some damages but not lost profits for the final two years, prompting cross-appeals.