Copeland v. Gold Coast Casino ( 1996 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-60233
__________________
AL COPELAND,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GOLD COAST CASINO, The Vessel, Her Machinery, Equipment,
Appurtenances, Tackles, Necessaries, Etc., IN REM,
Defendant,
and
AMERICAN GAMING CORPORATION, IN PERSONAM; MCCARLIE
ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED; GENE MCCARLIE; THOMAS WALMAN,
Defendants - Appellees.
______________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi
(1:93-CV-516-BrR)
______________________________________________
May 9, 1996
Before GARWOOD, HIGGINBOTHAM and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant Al Copeland appeals from an adverse judgment based
upon Rule 50(a). Having considered the briefs, oral argument of
counsel, and pertinent parts of the record, we find no error by the
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
district court that would require reversal.
Copeland's breach of contract claim was properly kept from the
jury because the letter of intent was too vague, uncertain, and
lacking in essential terms to be enforceable under Mississippi law.
See Massengill v. Guardian Management Co., 19 F.3d 196 (5th Cir.
1994); Knight v. Sharif, 875 F.2d 516 (5th Cir. 1989). Copeland's
good faith and fair dealing claim fails due to the absence of a
contractual or fiduciary duty. See Knight, 875 F.2d at 525; Carter
Equip. Co. v. John Deere Indus. Equip. Co., 681 F.2d 386, 390-91
(5th Cir. 1982). Similarly, Copeland's various fraud,
misrepresentation, and estoppel claims fail for lack of reasonable
reliance, and lack of evidence of a misrepresented present fact,
see Solomon v. Walgreen Co., 975 F.2d 1086, 1091 (5th Cir. 1992);
Spragins v. Sunburst Bank, 605 So.2d 777, 780 (Miss. 1992); Singing
River Mall v. Mark Fields, Inc., 599 So.2d 938, 945 (Miss. 1992),
and because the evidence on the essential element of damages was
too speculative to allow a recovery for any of Copeland's alleged
claims. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion
in excluding the damages evidence that Copeland claims was
wrongfully excluded at trial.
AFFIRMED.
2