The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $85,000 in damages for lost profits resulting from a one-month delay in the installation of a new printing press due to a breach of contract.
The appellant argued the damage award lacked evidentiary foundation and that the trial judge erred in admitting the respondent's accountant's evidence without qualifying him as an expert.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the loss of profits and concluding that the trial judge's assessment was not mere guesswork.
The Court also held that while it would have been preferable to qualify the accountant as an expert, admitting his evidence was not a reversible error.
