A party's dissatisfaction with the performance of a contract may not relieve that party of its obligations under the contract. Allegedly, Alaskans for Cuddy hired the plaintiff, The Doyle Group, to provide campaign advice. Alaskans for Cuddy was unhappy with the defendant's campaign advice and allegedly failed to pay $20,000 that was owed in May 2008. The Doyle Group sued, alleging breach of contract. A jury returned a plaintiff's verdict, and the defendant moved to set aside and for a new trial. A court does not function as the seventh juror. A reasonable factfinder reasonably could have concluded that the payment of $20,000 was an unequivocal condition of the contract, and that the defendant breached the contract. The defendant failed to establish a material breach of the contract by the plaintiff or that performance of the contract was impossible. "The jury could find," wrote the court, "that there was an ongoing obligation for payment by the defendants to the plaintiff for political consulting services that were being rendered in a substantive and meaningful way, although perhaps not to the liking of the defendant." The court denied the defendant's motion to set aside and for a new trial.