Pure, Ltd. v. National Beverage Corp.

5 F.3d 539 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. PURE, LTD., a Hawaii corporation Plaintiff-Counterclaim-Defendant-Appellant, v. NATIONAL BEVERAGE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellee, and Shasta Beverages, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff-Appellee. No. 92-15144. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Aug. 9, 1993. Decided Sept. 13, 1993. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, No. CV-88-00101-ACK; Alan C. Kay, District Judge, Presiding. D.Hawaii REVERSED. Before: SNEED, POOLE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 Appellant Pure challenges the district court's grant of JNOV, which was based on the lack of essential terms in the marketing and distribution contract between Pure and appellee Shasta. We reverse the JNOV and reinstate the jury's verdict in all respects. I. FACTS AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS 3 In 1986 Pure, Ltd., a Hawaii corporation that…