opinion: Louis CROCI and H. Phillip Nesbitt t/a Uniceiver, a Joint Venture, Appellee, v. The CITY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Appellant.
  No. 14422.
  United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
  Oct. 1, 1970.
  James C. Cacheris and James M. Thomson, Alexandria, Va., on brief for appellant.
  Lois H. Miller, Vienna, Va., and Harvey Rosenberg, Silver Spring, Md., on brief for appellee.
  Before SOBELOFF, BOREMAN and BRYAN, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM:
  Upon careful consideration of the record, briefs and appendix filed in this case, it appears to the court that the appellant is in breach of an oral contract to extend a line of credit to the appellee. After jury trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, appellee was awarded damages of $46,917.
  There is no basis in law for appellant’s assignment of errors. Substantial performance of the terms of the agreement by the parties, and appellee’s reliance thereon, preclude the defense based on the Statute of Frauds. Damages were properly calculated to recompense appellee for reasonable foreseeable losses. Finally, the issue of representation of authority to extend the line of credit by the bank president was properly left to the jury. The jury verdict in favor of the appellee is amply supported by the evidence.
  Affirmed.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in civil law issues involving government actors. The issue is: "Did the court support the decision of an administrative law judge? Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".