There has to be some token monteary value. Even a simple contract is only binding and often $1 is used as the binding amount.
“There has to be some token monteary value.”
I understand that in order to find in his favor, there has to be some value lost to him. Therefore, to say that he deserves zero money is to say that no wrong was done to him.
What strikes me is that the jury seemed to be saying there was no wrong done to him, since they wanted to give him nothing. My real question is, why did they find in his favor if they think he deserved zero repayment?