Liquidated damages

Present in certain legal contracts, this provision allows for the payment of a specified sum should one of the parties be in breach of contract.

Investopedia Says:
This is meant as a fair representation of losses in situations where actual damages are difficult to ascertain. These liquidated damages are meant to be fair rather than punitive.

Stipulated contractual amount that the parties agree is a reasonable estimation of the Damages owed to one in the event of a Breach by the other.

An amount agreed upon in a contract that one party will pay the other in the event of a Breach of the Contract.
Example: Abel engages a builder to erect a house. The Contract says that if the builder fails to complete it by March 1, 2005, the builder will pay $100 per day thereafter until completion, as liquidated damages.

Monetary compensation for a loss, detriment, or injury to a person or a person's rights or property, awarded by a court judgment or by a contract stipulation regarding breach of contract.

Generally, contracts that involve the exchange of money or the promise of performance have a liquidated damages stipulation. The purpose of this stipulation is to establish a predetermined sum that must be paid if a party fails to perform as promised.

Damages can be liquidated in a contract only if (1) the injury is either "uncertain" or "difficult to quantify"; (2) the amount is reasonable and considers the actual or anticipated harm caused by the contract breach, the difficulty of proving the loss, and the difficulty of finding another, adequate remedy; and (3) the damages are structured to function as damages, not as a penalty. If these criteria are not met, a liquidated damages clause will be void.

The American Law Reports annotation on liquidated damages states, "Damages for breach by either party may be liquidated in the agreement but only at an amount that is reasonable in light of the anticipated or actual harm caused by the breach… . A term fixing unreasonably large liquidated damages is unenforceable on grounds of public policy as a penalty" (12 A.L.R. 4th 891, 899).

A penalty is a sum that is disproportionate to the actual harm. It serves as a punishment or as a deterrent against the breach of a contract. Penalties are granted when it is found that the stipulations of a contract have not been met. For example, a builder who does not meet his or her schedule may have to pay a penalty. Liquidated damages, on the other hand, are an amount estimated to equal the extent of injury that may occur if the contract is breached. These damages are determined when a contract is drawn up, and serve as protection for both parties that have entered the contract, whether they are a buyer and a seller, an employer and an employee or other similar parties.

The principle of requiring payments to represent damages rather than penalties goes back to the equity courts, where its purpose was to protect parties from making unconscionable bargains or overreaching their boundaries. Today section 2-718(1) of the Uniform Commercial Code deals with the difference between a valid liquidated damages clause and an invalid penalty clause.

Liquidated damages clauses possess several contractual advantages. First, they establish some predictability involving costs, so that parties can balance the cost of anticipated performance against the cost of a breach. In this way liquidated damages serve as a source of limited insurance for both parties. Another contractual advantage of liquidated damages clauses is that the parties each have the opportunity to settle on a sum that is mutually agreeable, rather than leaving that decision up to the courts and adding the costs of time and legal fees.

Liquidated damages clauses are commonly used in real estate contracts. For buyers, liquidated damage clauses limit their loss if they default. For sellers, they provide a preset amount, usually the buyer's deposit money, in a timely manner if the buyer defaults.

The use and enforcement of liquidated damages clauses have changed over the years. For example, cases such as Colonial at Lynnfield v. Sloan, 870 F.2d 761 (1st Cir. 1989), and Shapiro v. Grinspoon, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 596, 541 N. E. 2d 359, 1989), have granted courts permission to compare the amount set forth in the liquidated damages provision against the actual damages caused by a breach of contract. These "second-look" rulings have led several courts to honor the liquidated damages clauses only if they are equal to, or almost equal to, the actual damages.

This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2007)

Contract law

Part of the common law series

Contract formation

Offer and acceptance · Mailbox rule Mirror image rule · Invitation to treat Firm offer · Consideration

Defenses against formation

Lack of capacity Duress · Undue influence Illusory promise · Statute of frauds Non est factum

Contract interpretation

Parol evidence rule Contract of adhesion Integration clause Contra proferentem

Excuses for non-performance

Mistake · Misrepresentation Frustration of purpose · Impossibility Impracticability · Illegality Unclean hands · Unconscionability Accord and satisfaction

Rights of third parties

Privity of contract Assignment · Delegation Novation · Third party beneficiary

Breach of contract

Anticipatory repudiation · Cover Exclusion clause · Efficient breach Fundamental breach

Remedies

Specific performance Liquidated damages Penal damages · Rescission

Quasi-contractual obligations

Promissory estoppel Quantum meruit

Related areas of law

Conflict of laws · Commercial law

Other common law areas

Tort law · Property law Wills, trusts and estates Criminal law · Evidence

v • d • e

Liquidated damages (also referred to as liquidated and ascertained damages) are damages whose amount the parties designate during the formation of a contract for the injured party to collect as compensation upon a specific breach (e.g., late performance).

When damages are not predetermined/assessed in advance, then the amount recoverable is said to be 'at large' (to be agreed or determined by a court or tribunal in the event of breach).

At common law, a liquidated damages clause will not be enforced if its purpose is to punish the wrongdoer/party in breach rather than to compensate the injured party (in which case it is referred to as a penal or penalty clause). One reason for this is that the enforcement of the term would, in effect, require an equitable order of specific performance. However, courts sitting in equity will seek to achieve a fair result and will not enforce a term that will lead to the unjust enrichment of the enforcing party.^[1]

In order for a liquidated damages clause to be upheld, two conditions must be met. First, the amount of the damages identified must roughly approximate the damages likely to fall upon the party seeking the benefit of the term. Second, the damages must be sufficiently uncertain at the time the contract is made that such a clause will likely save both parties the future difficulty of estimating damages. Damages that are sufficiently uncertain may be referred to as unliquidated damages, and may be so categorized because they are not mathematically calculable or are subject to a contingency which makes the amount of damages uncertain.

For example, suppose Joey agrees to lease a storefront to Monica, from which Monica intends to sell jewellery. If Joey breaches the contract by refusing to lease the storefront at the appointed time, it will be difficult to determine what profits Monica will have lost because the success of newly created small businesses is highly uncertain. This, therefore, would be an appropriate circumstance for Monica to insist upon a liquidated damages clause in case Joey fails to perform.

In the case of construction contracts, courts have occasionally refused to enforce liquidated damages provisions, choosing to following the Doctrine of Concurrent Delay when both parties have contributed to the overall delay of the project.

Contents 1 The law applied to bank and credit card charges 2 Update 3 References 4 See also

The law applied to bank and credit card charges

This law has recently been of great interest to UK bank and credit card customers who have been charged as much as £39 for a single transaction that took them over their credit limit. Consumers argued these charges were well beyond the cost of sending a computerised letter.

In 2007 the Office of Fair Trading investigated the excessively high charges being imposed on customers of credit card companies. In its report, the OFT confirmed these charges were unlawful under UK Law as they amounted to a penalty. It said it would be prepared to investigate any charge over £12, though this was not intended to indicate that £12 is a fair and acceptable charge. The OFT said it would be up to a court to determine such an amount based on the established legal precedent that the only recoverable cost would be actual costs incurred.

The credit card companies did not produce evidence of their actual costs to the OFT, instead insisting their charges are in line with clear policy and information provided to customers.

Following the ruling, many bank customers have made County Court claims against their banks and credit card companies for return of penalty charges for returned cheques, direct debits and unauthorised overdraft charges. To date no bank or credit card company, save NatWest on one occasion, has attended at Court for a Trial.

• OFT v Abbey

Update

In 2008 The High Court judged that terms in bank account contracts were not capable of being penal, bar those applicable to NatWest Bank customers between 2001 and 2003.^[2]

References

1. ^ "Liquidated Damages" (w), American Law Encyclopedia 6, http://law.jrank.org/pages/8310/Liquidated-Damages.html, retrieved 2009-04-07 
2. ^ http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2008/55-08

See also

• Unspecified claim

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)