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 liquidated 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 damage 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

Mortgage Pre-Approval Letter Leaves Lender Exposed to Claims from Seller

Selling a home—especially when preparing to move out of state—can be extremely stressful and requires…

3 days ago

When Does Petitioning Becomes Weaponized? The Appeal of 477 Harrison Ave., LLC v. JACE Boston, LLC

A major Massachusetts business litigation case now before the appellate courts could reshape the boundaries…

2 weeks ago

Casey Sack and Adam Shafran Secure Ruling Denying Pro Hac Vice Admission Based on Fake Citations in Wage Act Litigation

Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly recently featured a Superior Court ruling in a wage and employment dispute…

2 months ago

Civil Litigants Beware: Successful Abuse of Process Claims Can Create G.L. c. 93A Liability

A recent Superior Court case, 477 Harrison Ave, LLC v. Jace Boston, LLC et al…

3 months ago

Landlords On Notice: Security Deposit Funds Do Not Cover “Reasonable Wear and Tear”

It is often said that being a residential landlord in Massachusetts is difficult. There is…

4 months ago

Rudolph Friedmann Secures Appeals Court Ruling Upholding Attorneys’ Fees in Breach of Contract Case

George Barclay and Alvin Nathanson secured a significant appellate victory for a Rudolph Friedmann client…

4 months ago