Autauga Quality Cotton Association v. Crosby
893 F.3d 1276 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Alabama law, a liquidated damages clause is an unenforceable penalty if its purpose is to deter breach rather than to serve as a reasonable pre-breach estimate of probable loss. A clause fails this test if it is intended to punish, is ambiguous, or produces a sum grossly disproportionate to any possible actual damages.
Facts:
- Autauga Quality Cotton Association is a cooperative that markets cotton for its members, including a family of farmers known as the Crosbys (operating as CCCC).
- In 2007, the Crosbys entered a marketing agreement obligating them to sell Autauga all cotton grown on farms specified in an annual verification form.
- Because the Crosbys did not submit a new form for the 2010 crop year, their 2009 form, which pledged cotton from over 2,000 acres, remained in effect.
- The Crosbys failed to exercise their option to 'sign out' of the agreement for the 2010 crop year by the March 26, 2010 deadline.
- Before the sign-out deadline, Tim Crosby contracted to sell essentially all of CCCC's 2010 cotton crop to an outside entity, Cargill Cotton.
- During the 2010 crop year, the Crosbys delivered over 4,000 bales of cotton to Cargill and delivered none of their pledged cotton to Autauga, in violation of the marketing agreement.
Procedural Posture:
- Autauga Quality Cotton Association sued the Crosbys in U.S. District Court for breach of contract, seeking liquidated damages.
- During discovery and litigation, Autauga presented several different calculations for the liquidated damages, with the final demand being $1,696,610.
- The Crosbys filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the marketing agreement's liquidated damages clause was an unenforceable penalty under Alabama law.
- The district court (trial court) granted the Crosbys' motion for summary judgment, ruling that the clause was a void penalty.
- Autauga, as the appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a liquidated damages provision in a cooperative marketing agreement constitute an unenforceable penalty under Alabama law when its formula is designed to deter breach and results in a sum vastly disproportionate to the cooperative's probable loss?
Opinions:
Majority - Newsom, Circuit Judge
Yes, the liquidated damages provision constitutes an unenforceable penalty. A provision is a penalty if it fails any part of Alabama's three-part test, which requires that (1) damages from a breach are difficult to estimate, (2) the parties intended to provide for damages rather than a penalty, and (3) the sum is a reasonable pre-breach estimate of probable loss. Here, the provision fails the second and third prongs. First, the formula's use of the 'highest price per pound received' by the Association during the year, rather than an average, indicates a punitive intent to deter breach, not to compensate for loss, a conclusion supported by the testimony of Autauga's own expert. Second, the formula is not a reasonable estimate of probable loss because it is fatally ambiguous (failing to define key terms like 'price' or 'date of breach') and produces a sum ($1.69M) that is grossly disproportionate to any conceivable actual harm suffered by the non-profit cooperative. The court also rejected Autauga's arguments for special treatment, finding that a statute authorizing such clauses for certain cooperatives did not apply because Autauga chose to organize under a different statutory article to gain tax advantages.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the stringent application of Alabama's common law test for liquidated damages, refusing to create a special, more lenient standard for agricultural cooperatives. It serves as a strong precedent against damages clauses that appear punitive, highlighting that terms like 'highest price' and expert testimony admitting a 'disincentive' purpose are clear indicators of an unenforceable penalty. The ruling also underscores a principle of statutory interpretation: a party cannot selectively enjoy the benefits of a statutory scheme it deliberately chose not to operate under, reinforcing that strategic business decisions have legal consequences. This case provides clear guidance for contract drafters that liquidated damages must be tethered to a reasonable, good-faith estimate of actual harm to be enforceable.
Unlock the full brief for Autauga Quality Cotton Association v. Crosby