specifications were indeed part of the Federated-West Carrollton contract. The purchase order did not reference the printed-divider specifications, and West Carrollton’s President, Charles Huber, testified that these specifications were never intended to be a part of the pertinent contract. Moreover, genuine issues of fact remained as to whether Pillsbury’s claimed losses were caused by West Carrollton’s alleged breach of this contract or whether the losses resulted because Pillsbury improperly inserted the dividers with the ink-side facing downwards. Thus, we conclude that the jury’s verdict in favor of West Carrollton on Pillsbury’s breach of contract claim was not a “miscarriage of justice.” See Lipphardt v. Durango Steakhouse of Brandon, Inc., 267 F.3d 1183, 1186 (11th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we hold that the district court
holding that district court did not abuse discretion in denying motion for new trial because nonmovant presented sufficient evidence at trial for the district court to conclude that the outcome was not against the great weight of the evidence so as to constitute a miscarriage of justice holding that the trial court can and should grant a new trial if the manifest weight of the evidence is contrary to the verdict holding that the district court should grant a motion for a new trial when the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence or will result in a miscarriage of justice emphasis added holding that a jurys award of compensatory damages will be set aside on the grounds of excessiveness only if the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence or will result in a miscarriage of justice holding that a district court must compare and weigh the opposing evidence and it must set aside the verdict if it determines that the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence