282 U.S. 555 (1931), Supreme Court of the United States
Story Parchment Co. v.
When a defendant's antitrust conspiracy depresses market prices and makes the precise calculation of a plaintiff's lost profits impossible, may a jury award damages based on a just and reasonable estimate drawn from relevant evidence, or must the plaintiff prove damages with mathematical precision to avoid an impermissibly speculative verdict?
Damages cannot be recovered if they are wholly speculative as to the fact of injury; however, where the existence of damage is established and the defendant's wrongful conduct makes the precise amount of damages difficult or impossible to ascertain, the law does not require mathematical exactness. In such circumstances, the trier of fact may make a just and reasonable estimate of the damage based on relevant data, and the risk of uncertainty is placed upon the wrongdoer whose misconduct created the difficulty. This principle applies in antitrust cases when unlawful restraints of trade distort prices and obscure the but-for measure of loss.
Yes. The evidence established that Story suffered injury from an unlawful conspiracy, and although the exact amount of damages could not be determined with precision, the jury had an adequate basis to make a just and reasonable estimate. The appellate court erred in setting aside the verdict on the ground of speculative damages. The Supreme Court reversed and directed that the jury's verdict be reinstated.
Story Parchment is a bedrock case on damages, frequently cited for the "wrongdoer bears the risk of uncertainty" principle. In antitrust matters, it authorizes juries to use reasonable estimation methods—like before-and-after comparisons or reference (yardstick) markets—when conspiracies distort prices. The case also informs broader tort and contract damages doctrine: once the fact of injury is shown, courts will not demand unattainable precision in quantifying the loss when the defendant's conduct created the evidentiary gap. For law students, it clarifies the proofs required to survive motions challenging damages as speculative and frames how to build a record that permits a jury to estimate damages without crossing into conjecture.