## Facts

- A music promoter/manager and a musician entered multiple agreements in 1975 governing recording, management, and songwriting services.
- A later Further Modification Agreement (FMA) reallocated royalty obligations for three albums.
- Under the FMA, the musician was to pay the manager royalties from the band’s third album, and the manager was to account for and remit to the musician royalties derived from the first and second albums.
- The relationship deteriorated amid competing claims that each side failed to account for and pay royalties owed under the FMA.
- The dispute required fact-intensive assessment of royalty accountings, payments, and whether any alleged deficiencies were material.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a new trial on the ground that the jury’s verdict was against the clear weight of the evidence.
2. Whether alleged evidentiary and jury-instruction errors required reversal or a new trial.
3. Whether the evidence compelled a finding that the manager materially breached the FMA, excusing the musician’s duty to pay third-album royalties.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment for the manager.
- It held the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the musician’s motion for a new trial.
- It concluded the record provided a reasonable basis for the jury’s findings that:
  - the musician breached the FMA by failing to pay third-album royalties; and
  - the manager did not materially breach the FMA duties to account for and pay royalties from the first and second albums.
- It rejected challenges based on alleged trial errors, finding no reversible error.
- The damages award to the manager ($547,007) remained intact in all material respects.

## Legal Principles

- Denial of a motion for a new trial based on weight of the evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- An appellate court will not disturb a jury verdict where the record provides a reasonable basis for the verdict and the trial court’s refusal to order a new trial.
- Appellate review does not reweigh evidence or reassess credibility determinations committed to the jury.
- Whether a breach is material, and whether it excuses the other party’s performance, commonly turns on fact questions (including magnitude and frequency of payment/accounting deficiencies and course of dealing).

## Conclusion

The First Circuit upheld a jury verdict resolving a reciprocal royalty-accounting dispute under a modified contract arrangement, holding that the evidence supported the jury’s allocation of breach and that the district court acted within its discretion in denying a new trial and rejecting alleged trial-error challenges.


Ahern v. Scholz, 85 F.3d 774 (1st Cir. 1996)