Jury Verdict in Russian Private Jet Case Upheld Based on Material Breach Instruction

Sky Capital, a single-asset entity, ordered a private jet from Bombardier for a (presumably) wealthy Russian man named Iouri Chliaifchtein.  Unhappy with the jet Bombardier delivered, Sky Capital sued Bombardier for, among other things, breach of the delivery contract.  The case went to trial and the jury returned a defense verdict in favor of Bombardier.

Sky Capital appealed, arguing that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the jury’s verdict because Bombardier clearly breached part of the delivery contract.  On appeal, the Court noted that the jury was instructed that to find a breach, it must be material.  Although, as the Court recognized, materiality instructions are generally presented in the context of when a party is excused from performing under a contract based on the other party’s breach, Sky Capital did not challenge the instruction itself.  Consequently, the Court upheld the verdict on the basis that although Bombardier did breach the delivery contract, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that it was not material.