¶18. "If the judgment was interlocutory because the requirements of Rule 54(b) were not met, this Court has not hesitated to reverse for lack of jurisdiction." Rolison v. Fryar , 204 So. 3d 725, 734 (Miss. 2016) (citing Brown v. Collections, Inc. , 188 So. 3d 1171, 1173 (Miss. 2016) ; Cox v. Howard, Weil, Labouisse, Friedrichs, Inc. , 512 So. 2d 897, 899 (Miss.

Rolison v. Fryar, 204 So.3d 725, 736 (Miss. 2016).

"[W]aiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right." Rolison v. Fryar , 204 So. 3d 725, 733 (Miss. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). First, as explained above, Petro Harvester did not supersede or waive its implicit and explicit rights as a mineral lessee when it signed the Surface Lease.

There is thus a colorable argument that, under ordinary tort principles, Itron cannot recover the cost of the settlement as damages to the extent Defendants show the settlement to have been unreasonable. See Rolison v. Fryar , 204 So.3d 725, 736 (Miss. 2016) ("An injured party has a duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate damages."); see also Wall v. Swilley , 562 So.2d 1252, 1258 (Miss. 1990) (in Mississippi, failure to mitigate "is an affirmative defense" defendants must plead and prove).

"An injured party has a duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate damages." Rolison v. Fryar, 204 So. 3d 725, 736 (Miss. 2016) (citation omitted). The doctrine of avoidable consequences holds that "an injured party is not entitled to recover damages which he or she could have avoided through reasonable efforts."

‘All that can be required is that the evidence—with such certainty as the nature of the particular case may permit—lay a foundation which will enable the trier of fact to make a fair and reasonable estimate of the amount of damage.’" Rolison v. Fryar, 204 So. 3d 725, 741-42 (¶49) (Miss. 2016) (quoting Cain v. Mid-Smith. Pump Co., 458 So. 2d 1048, 1050 (Miss. 1984)). "[S]ufficient proof is that which is a reasonable basis for computation of damages and the best evidence obtainable under the circumstances of the case that will enable the trier of fact to arrive at a fair approximate estimate of the loss."

"[A] Rule 54(b) certification, right or wrong, starts the time for appeal running." In re Conservatorship of Redd , 332 So. 3d 250, 256 (¶18) (Miss. 2021) (quoting Rolison v. Fryar , 204 So. 3d 725, 734 (¶19) (Miss. 2016) ). "Thus, once a trial court has directed the entry of a final judgment under Rule 54(b), any party seeking relief from that judgment, even on the ground that the judgment is, in fact, interlocutory, must perfect an appeal within thirty days after the entry of judgment."

"In Mississippi, a party may recover for loss of future profits in a breach of contract action so long as such profits are proved to a reasonable certainty and not based on mere speculation or conjecture." Rolison v. Fryar , 204 So. 3d 725, 741 (¶49) (Miss. 2016) (citing Benchmark Health Care Ctr. Inc. v. Cain , 912 So. 2d 175, 179 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) ).

The Mississippi Supreme Court has held, "When a party fails to demand a jury trial and proceeds to try the case to the bench, the party, having failed to exercise the jury trial right in a timely manner, forfeits the right to complain." Rolison v. Fryar , 204 So. 3d 725, 733 (¶16) (Miss. 2016). Accordingly, we find that Marquar waived his argument as to this issue on appeal.

Furthermore, Authement has not attempted to mitigate damages by asserting any claim to those funds from Skojac, the beneficiary of the Keesler account. SeeRolison v. Fryar , 204 So. 3d 725, 736 (¶26) (Miss. 2016) ("An injured party has a duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate damages.").