Dave Gustafson & Co. v. State
83 S.D. 160, 156 N.W. 2d 185 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contract provision for stipulated damages is enforceable as liquidated damages, not an unenforceable penalty, if at the time of contracting the damages resulting from a breach are difficult to ascertain, the parties made a reasonable effort to fix fair compensation, and the stipulated amount bears a reasonable relation to the probable damages.
Facts:
- On October 5, 1963, Dave Gustafson & Company entered into a contract with the State Highway Commission to build a new public highway for $530,724.14.
- The contract included a provision for 'liquidated damage' of a set amount for each day the project was delayed, based on a graduated scale tied to the total contract price.
- For this contract's value, the specified daily damage amount was $210.
- The contract stated this sum was for inconvenience to the public and added costs of engineering and supervision, and was to be treated 'not as penalty but as fixed, agreed liquidated damage.'
- During the new highway's construction, the old highway it was replacing remained open for public travel.
- Gustafson failed to complete the highway by the agreed-upon deadline, resulting in a delay of 67 working days for which no extension was granted.
- In response to an interrogatory, the state acknowledged that the specific monetary value of any damage, loss, or expense it incurred due to the delay was 'unknown.'
Procedural Posture:
- Upon completion of the highway project, the State of South Dakota withheld $14,070 from the final payment to Dave Gustafson & Co., citing the contract's liquidated damages clause for a 67-day delay.
- Dave Gustafson & Co. (plaintiff) initiated an action against the State of South Dakota and its Highway Commission (defendants) in a state trial court to recover the withheld amount.
- The trial court found the contract provision was an enforceable clause for liquidated damages and ruled in favor of the State.
- Dave Gustafson & Co. (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of South Dakota.
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 contract provision that requires a contractor to pay a predetermined, graduated daily sum for failing to timely complete a public highway project an enforceable liquidated damages clause or an unenforceable penalty, when the state cannot prove the exact amount of its actual damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Hanson, Presiding Judge
Yes, the provision is an enforceable liquidated damages clause. A provision for stipulated damages will be sustained if, at the time the contract was made, the potential damages from a breach were incapable or very difficult of accurate estimation, the parties made a reasonable endeavor to fix fair compensation, and the stipulated amount bears a reasonable relation to probable damages. The court found that damages for a delay in constructing a new highway—including public inconvenience and added administrative costs—are impossible to measure accurately. The contract's use of a graduated scale based on the total project cost demonstrated a reasonable attempt to fix fair compensation. Finally, the court concluded the amount was reasonably related to the probable damages and not disproportionate to the anticipated harm. The fact that actual damages were 'unknown' is irrelevant, as the purpose of a liquidated damages clause is to substitute the stipulated amount for actual damages, thereby avoiding the need to prove them.
Analysis:
This decision aligns South Dakota law with the modern judicial tendency to enforce liquidated damages clauses, particularly in public works contracts, viewing them as useful tools rather than disfavored penalties. By explicitly overruling a portion of its precedent in Fitzgerald v. City of Huron, the court recognizes the inherent difficulty in quantifying damages like public inconvenience. This ruling strengthens the ability of government entities to enforce contract provisions that ensure timely performance of public projects without bearing the difficult burden of proving the precise monetary value of losses caused by a delay.
