2000 to disclose that FDA certification was rescinded, judgment as a matter of law is not appropriate. Evidence presented at trial indicated that the only reason Safety Technologies had to question the status of FDA certification was that Biotronix 2000 did not promptly verify certification or provide the certification numbers. A reasonable jury could conclude that this alone did not make it unreasonable for Safety Technologies to rely on Biotronix 2000 to communicate the fact that the FDA had rescinded certification. Safety Technologies had a letter from an attorney for Bitoronix Laborato- ríes assuring Safety Technologies that the units had FDA certification. Linda King, the president of Safety Technologies, testified that when she asked John Burne, an officer and agent of Bi 977) (<HOLDING>). Safety Technologies’ damages were not fixed
holding that prejudgment interest was appropriate when plaintiffs damages from securities fraud were ascertainable at the time of the sale in accordance with accepted standards of valuation holding that where the amount of damages was the primary issue in dispute the plaintiffs claim for damages was not liquidated until the date the jury returned its verdict and the plaintiffs are not entitled to prejudgment interest under ksa  16 201 holding that prejudgment interest was not appropriate because the plaintiffs damages were not readily ascertainable because at the time the cause of action arose a fact question remained for the court to determine when the fraud terminated holding that prejudgment interest should not be added to damages awarded for misrepresentation because the amount of damages were not liquidated or ascertainable before the verdict holding that prejudgment interest is based on the amount of the judgment not the total amount of damages awarded by the jury because nonsettling defendants have no control over settlement negotiations and should not be forced to pay prejudgment interest on settling defendants parts of a damages award