Bowbells Public School District No. 14 v. Walker
1975 N.D. LEXIS 164, 231 N.W.2d 173 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A liquidated damages clause in a public employment contract is enforceable if the damages from a breach are impracticable or extremely difficult to ascertain at the time of contracting, there was a reasonable endeavor to fix compensation, and the stipulated amount bears a reasonable relation to the probable damages.
Facts:
- Marcia Walker was employed as a teacher by Bowbells Public School District No. 14 for the 1972-1973 school year.
- In January 1973, negotiating committees for the school district and the Bowbells Education Association, of which Walker was a member, agreed to a contract release policy.
- The policy stipulated that a teacher breaching their contract would pay damages on a graduated scale: 1% of their salary after May 15, 2% after June 15, 3% after July 15, and 4% after August 15.
- On March 23, 1973, Walker signed a contract to teach for the 1973-1974 school year for a salary of $6,300, which incorporated the release policy.
- On August 19, 1973, Walker requested to be released from her contract, stating that her husband was moving out of the area and she wished to accompany him.
- In a letter dated August 26, 1973, Walker formally confirmed she would not be able to fulfill her contract.
- On August 30, 1973, after securing a replacement teacher, the school district released Walker from her contract and requested payment of the stipulated damages (4% of her salary, amounting to $252).
- Walker did not pay the requested amount.
Procedural Posture:
- Bowbells Public School District No. 14 sued Marcia Walker in the Grand Forks District Court (trial court) for breach of contract.
- The trial court found that Walker had breached her contract and that the liquidated-damages provision was valid.
- The trial court entered judgment for the school district in the amount of $252, plus costs and disbursements.
- Marcia Walker (appellant) appealed the judgment to this court, with the school district as the appellee.
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 clause in a teacher's employment contract, which calculates damages as a percentage of salary based on how close to the start of the school year the breach occurs, constitute an unenforceable penalty under a state statute that voids such clauses unless actual damages are impracticable or extremely difficult to fix?
Opinions:
Majority - Paulson, J.
No. A liquidated damages clause is valid if the harm caused by the breach is difficult to ascertain, and the stipulated amount is a reasonable forecast of the harm. The court found that while the direct costs of replacing a teacher might be ascertainable, the damages to the public, such as the interruption to the school system and the negative effect on student learning, are extremely difficult to evaluate in monetary terms. This difficulty brings the clause within the exception of § 9-08-04, N.D.C.C. The court adopted a three-part test from Hofer v. W. M. Scott Livestock Company, requiring that: 1) damages are difficult to estimate at the time of contracting; 2) there was a reasonable endeavor to fix compensation; and 3) the amount is reasonably related to probable damages. The graduated nature of the clause, which increases the amount owed closer to the start of school, demonstrated a reasonable endeavor to pre-determine damages rather than impose a penalty. The amount of 4% ($252) was deemed a reasonable and not disproportionate estimate of the anticipated harm.
Analysis:
This decision broadens the scope of what constitutes damages that are 'impracticable or extremely difficult to fix' in the context of public contracts. By recognizing intangible public harm, such as disruption to student learning, as a valid basis for liquidated damages, the court makes it easier for public entities like school districts to enforce such clauses. This precedent shifts some of the risk of an employee's breach from the public employer to the employee, giving more weight to the societal interest in the uninterrupted performance of public services. It provides a clear framework for evaluating the validity of similar provisions in teacher contracts and other public service agreements.
