Banta v. Stamford Motor Co.
92 A. 665, 1914 Conn. LEXIS 109, 89 Conn. 51 (1914)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contractual provision for a stipulated sum to be paid upon breach will be enforced as liquidated damages, rather than an unenforceable penalty, if the anticipated damages are uncertain or difficult to prove, the parties intended to liquidate damages in advance, and the stipulated amount was reasonable and not greatly disproportionate to the presumable loss at the time of contract formation.
Facts:
- The plaintiff and the defendant entered into a contract for the construction of a pleasure boat.
- The contract stipulated that the defendant, the builder, would pay per diem sums to the plaintiff in the event of delay in the boat's completion.
- The boat was a luxury article intended solely for the plaintiff’s personal pleasure and gratification.
- The plaintiff desired to use the yacht for cruising in Chesapeake Bay and later in Florida waters during the fall months.
- The defendant was informed of the plaintiff’s purpose in using the boat.
- The contract also included a provision for the plaintiff to pay $5 a day for earlier delivery of the yacht.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendant to recover the stipulated per diem sums for delay in the completion of the boat.
- The defendant contended that the stipulated sums were an unenforceable penalty, not liquidated damages.
- The defendant pleaded that delays in payments from the plaintiff caused its delay in completion.
- The trial court found that the stipulated per diem sum was reasonable and admitted evidence of the rental price of a similar boat.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a contractual provision for per diem sums for delayed completion of a luxury item enforceable as liquidated damages when the actual pecuniary loss from the delay is difficult to prove, but substantial damages for loss of use are recoverable?
Opinions:
Majority - Prentice, C. J.
Yes, a contractual provision for per diem sums for delayed completion of a luxury item is enforceable as liquidated damages, even when direct pecuniary loss is difficult to prove, because substantial damages for loss of use are recoverable. The court reaffirms a three-condition test for upholding liquidated damages provisions: (1) the damages to be anticipated from a breach must be uncertain in amount or difficult to prove; (2) there must have been an intent on the part of the parties to liquidate them in advance; and (3) the amount stipulated must be a reasonable one, not greatly disproportionate to the presumable loss or injury. Applying these conditions, the court found that the intent to liquidate damages (condition 2) was clear, as such provisions are common in construction contracts. The uncertainty of damages (condition 1) was self-demonstrating; loss of use of a pleasure yacht, especially for specific seasonal cruising, is inherently difficult to quantify monetarily. Regarding reasonableness (condition 3), the court referenced Cook v. Packard Motor Car Co. to establish that one is not barred from recovering substantial damages for the wrongful deprivation of use of a luxury item, even if devoted solely to personal pleasure. The standard for reasonableness is what might reasonably have been anticipated at the time the contract was made (the "look forward" approach), not the actual loss. Given the plaintiff's specific plans for fall cruising and the defendant's awareness of the boat's purpose, the agreed-upon daily rate was found to be reasonable by the trial court, a conclusion the Supreme Court upheld. The court also affirmed that evidence of the rental price of a similar boat was admissible.
Analysis:
This case is highly significant for contract law, particularly concerning liquidated damages clauses for unique or luxury goods. It clarifies that the inability to prove direct pecuniary loss for items of personal pleasure does not automatically render a liquidated damages clause an unenforceable penalty. By emphasizing a "look forward" assessment of reasonableness (what was foreseeable at contract formation) over a "look backward" assessment (actual damages incurred), the court provides greater certainty for parties entering such agreements. This ruling supports the principle of contractual freedom and encourages parties to pre-estimate damages where actual losses are inherently difficult to quantify, ensuring that breaches of contract, even for non-commercial losses, are appropriately compensated.
