Insights

Liquidated Damages Cannot Penalize

A liquidated damage provision can be an effective contractual tool to predetermine the amount of damages a party must pay if there is a breach of the contract. Liquidated damage provisions are intended to provide parties with certainty of result by allowing them to agree in advance to a sum certain. That sum is intended to be a reasonable estimate of potential damage in the event of a breach. As illustrated by a recent Massachusetts Appeals Court decision, however, a liquidation damage provision that serves as a penalty for a breach of the contract, rather than a reasonable estimate of potential damage, will not be enforced.

The decision concerned a provision of a commercial lease that entitled the tenant to actual damages plus $500 for each day items identified on a punch list, such as HVAC maintenance and repair, remained uncompleted after thirty days. Liquidated damage provisions negotiated between sophisticated parties are presumptively valid, provided that: (1) actual damages are difficult to calculate at the time of contract formation; and (2) the agreed upon sum represents a reasonable estimate of potential damage in the event of a breach. As the Appeals Court noted, however, the provision of this lease was not a liquated damages provision at all. By awarding a sum above the tenant’s actual damages, this provision guaranteed that the liquidated damage calculation would exceed, and perhaps vastly exceed, the actual damage calculation. Rather than provide the parties with certainty of result by allowing them to agree to a sum certain based on a reasonable estimate of potential damages, this lease provision simply added a $500 daily fine to the tenant’s actual damage calculation. The Appeals Court determined that this lease provision was an unenforceable penalty and therefore limited the damages to the tenant’s actual damages.            

Published by
Sean Cullen

Recent Posts

The Meaning of At-Will Employment in Massachusetts

The at-will employment doctrine is a double-edged sword in the workplace, offering both freedom and…

4 weeks ago

Rudolph Friedmann Wins Martha’s Vineyard Real Estate Dispute

Jon Friedmann obtained a favorable verdict from the Massachusetts Superior Court after a three-day jury-waived…

4 weeks ago

Alex Tsianatelis Quoted in “Landlord’s alleged breach doesn’t justify end of rent payments” in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly

A Massachusetts court recently decided a case involving a commercial lease agreement dispute, which determined…

2 months ago

Rudolph Friedmann Elevates Alexander Tsianatelis to Partner

Rudolph Friedmann is pleased to announce Alexander Tsianatelis has been named a partner at the…

2 months ago

Court Orders Contractor to Pay Attorney’s Fees Under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 231, § 6F

Jon Friedmann and Casey Sack successfully secured a decision under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 231,…

2 months ago

Good Fences Make Good Neighbors … So Do Clear and Concise Intentions: An Examination of Tools That Give a Party the Right to Control Property They No Longer Own

A selling party owned two adjacent oceanfront homes in a scenic community in Massachusetts. The…

3 months ago