99-4234 Sanfield, Inc. v. Finlay Fine Jewelry Corp.

Listen to this article

“Sanfield offered two theories of financial loss. One was that, in order to counter Finlay’s deceit, Sanfield had to place additional advertisements to inform the public that absolute prices for jewelry, and not percentage discounts from phantom prices, are what matter. This is a plausible theory, but one the district judge thought unsubstantiated. Sanfield did not introduce copies of these advertisements, bills for them, or any other documentary support for its claim. Although Sanfield’s CEO testified that such an advertising campaign had been run, the district judge found this testimony not credible. 76 F. Supp. 2d at 873. That finding is not clearly erroneous. See Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 570 (1985). Sanfield’s other contention was that it must have lost some sales to Finlay because some customers demanded that Sanfield’s clerks discount its merchandise by 50% and, when they would not do so, left the store. The district judge found this evidence insufficient because Sanfield could not establish a causal connection between these episodes and Finlay’s promotions. 76 F. Supp. 2d at 873. Many people who walk through Sanfield’s door would fish for discounts even if Finlay were to change its business methods. What the district judge sought was some evidence that Sanfield’s sales were influenced by Finlay’s practices. For example, did Sanfield’s sales rise on weekdays, when Finlay was most likely to take down its ‘sale’ signs? The district judge observed that Sanfield’s sales rose during the months covered by its claims and that attributing any particular lost business to Finlay is difficult: ‘Finlay and Sanfield did not compete exclusively with each other; rather, there were numerous other competitors for sales of the gold jewelry at issue.’ Ibid. If these other rivals sold for less than Finlay, then they would be the likely source of diverted business; yet Sanfield did not put in the record a comparison of jewelers’ prices in Rockford.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Reinhard, J., Easterbrook, J.