Dj Manufacturing Corporation v. United States
86 F.3d 1130, 1996 WL 316426 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A liquidated damages clause is enforceable if the harm from a breach is difficult to estimate and the stipulated amount is an objectively reasonable forecast of potential loss. The party challenging the clause bears the burden of proving it is an unenforceable penalty, and the clause is not invalidated simply because it uses a standard rate or is intended to encourage prompt performance.
Facts:
- In January 1991, during Operation Desert Storm, the United States government solicited an offer from DJ Manufacturing Corporation (DJ) for 283,695 combat field packs.
- The solicitation and subsequent contract included a specific delivery schedule and a liquidated damages clause for late delivery.
- The contract, effective February 14, 1991, stipulated that for each article delivered late, liquidated damages would be assessed at 1/6 of one percent of the contract price for each day of delay.
- DJ missed several delivery deadlines for the field packs.
- Pursuant to the liquidated damages clause, the government withheld $663,266.92 in payment, which was approximately 8% of the total contract price of $8,493,828.
Procedural Posture:
- DJ Manufacturing Corporation filed suit against the United States in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to recover the amount withheld under the liquidated damages clause.
- The government moved for summary judgment.
- The Court of Federal Claims, the trial court, granted the government's motion for summary judgment and dismissed DJ's complaint.
- DJ, as appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, with the United States as 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 government contract constitute an unenforceable penalty merely because the rate is a standard one not specifically calculated for the individual contract, or because it is intended to encourage prompt performance?
Opinions:
Majority - Bryson, Circuit Judge.
No. A liquidated damages clause is not rendered an unenforceable penalty simply because it utilizes a standard rate or is intended to spur performance. The test for the enforceability of such a clause is objective, focusing on whether the stipulated amount is a reasonable forecast of damages that are otherwise difficult to ascertain, not on the subjective process the contracting officer used to arrive at the rate. The burden of proof rests heavily on the party challenging the clause to show that the amount is so extravagant or disproportionate to any potential loss as to be purely punitive. Here, damages from delayed delivery of wartime supplies were inherently difficult to estimate, and DJ failed to provide any evidence that the agreed-upon rate was objectively unreasonable. The court noted that encouraging prompt performance is a legitimate function of a liquidated damages clause, and it only becomes an unenforceable penalty when it serves only as a spur to performance because no possible damage could result from the breach, or when the amount is so disproportionate that it is clearly not compensatory.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the federal judiciary's deference to liquidated damages clauses, particularly in the context of government contracts where actual damages from delay are often difficult to quantify. It solidifies the principle that the test for reasonableness is objective, focusing on the stipulated amount itself rather than the drafter's subjective, case-by-case analysis. By rejecting the arguments that using a 'standard rate' or having an intent to 'spur performance' invalidates a clause, the court provides contracting parties, especially the government, with greater certainty that their pre-agreed damage provisions will be upheld, thereby discouraging subsequent litigation over damages.
Unlock the full brief for Dj Manufacturing Corporation v. United States