1. What effect did the fact that the contract was a preprinted contract created by Nufarm have?
2. Why did the Court look at Coleman's experience and Nufarm's size?
3. Do you think the agreement was unconscionable and what could Nufarm have done different?

Reference:DJ Coleman vs. Nufarm Americas court case

Summary:The Defendant filed motions in limine to suppress testimony as to the cause of the Plaintiff's crop damage and the duties of the Defendant to test its products and properly handle customer complaints. The Court found that both experts may testify as to the cause of the crop damage and the Defendant's duty to test its products, but allowed only one of the experts to testify as to the duty of the Defendant to properly handle customer complaints.

DJ Coleman, Inc. v. Nufarm Americas, Inc., Case No. 1:08-cv-051, (D.N.D. Mar. 12, 2010)

"If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise." Fed.R.Evid. 702. When deciding whether to admit expert testimony of a witness, the trial court acts as a "gatekeeper" to make "`a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue.'"Glastetter v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., 252 F.3d 986, 988 (8th Cir. 2001) (quotingDaubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592-93 (1993)).

Order of court:

For the reasons stated above, the CourtGRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PARTthe Defendant's "Daubert Motion to Exclude Testimony of Kent McKay" (Docket No. 53) and "Renewed Motion to Exclude Testimony of Kent McKay" (Docket No. 78). The Court finds that Kent McKay's opinions as to the cause of the damage to DJ Coleman's 2007 sunflower crop areadmissible under Rule 702. Further, Kent McKay's opinions as to Nufarm's duties to test Assert are admissible but any opinions concerning how to properly handle customer complaints are unreliable and inadmissible under Rule 702.

The CourtDENIESthe Defendant's "Daubert Motion to Exclude Testimony of Henry Buckwalter" (Docket No. 83). The Court finds that Henry Buckwalter's expert opinions as to the ambiguity of Assert's label are admissible under Rule 702. Further, Henry Buckwalter's opinions as to Nufarm's duty to test Assert and industry practice of a chemical company in handling customer complaints are reliable and admissible under Rule 702.

The challenges to the expert opinions of McKay and Buckwalter go largely to the weight and not the admissibility of the testimony. Many of Nufarm's concerns can be addressed by way of cross-examination. As the Supreme Court emphasized inDaubert, 509 U.S. at 596, "Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence." Nufarm will have a full opportunity to cross-examine each of the Plaintiff's experts and highlight the shortcomings of their testimony. The Court's gatekeeper role should not invade the province of the jury whose job it is to decide issues of credibility and to determine the weight to be accorded such evidence. The trial court's role as a gatekeeper is not intended to serve as a replacement for the adversary system.

THe difference would be due to the lack of evidences which could have saved the party with the defendnet. Further pre-printed court has played a negatiuve role in wining oif teh case which was going in the court.

Thuis had made the agreement is invalid in all perspects