Hutchison v. Tompkins

Supreme Court of Florida
259 So. 2d 129 (1972)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The enforceability of a liquidated damages clause depends on whether damages were readily ascertainable at the time the contract was formed, not at the time of the breach. A court may still decline to enforce the clause on equitable grounds if the amount is unconscionable in light of the circumstances at the time of breach.

Facts:

H.D. and Elizabeth Hutchison ('the Hutchisons') entered into a contract to sell a parcel of land to C.E. Tompkins and Douglas Mac Tompkins ('the Tompkins') for a purchase price of $125,000.
As part of the contract, the Tompkins made a $10,000 cash deposit, which was held by an escrow agent.
The contract contained a liquidated damages clause stating that if the Tompkins failed to perform, the Hutchisons could elect to retain the $10,000 deposit as full damages.
The Hutchisons were ready, willing, and able to close the sale, but the Tompkins failed and refused to complete the purchase.
The escrow agent returned the $10,000 deposit to the Tompkins without authorization from the Hutchisons.

Procedural Posture:

The Hutchisons (vendors) sued the Tompkins (purchasers) in a Florida trial court seeking to recover the $10,000 deposit as liquidated damages.
The trial court dismissed the Hutchisons' complaint for failure to state a cause of action, relying on the precedent set in Pembroke v. Caudill.
The Hutchisons appealed the dismissal to the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District.
The District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's dismissal, agreeing that the liquidated damages clause was an unenforceable penalty as a matter of law.
The Hutchisons then petitioned the Supreme Court of Florida for a writ of certiorari, arguing the District Court's decision conflicted with another precedent, Hyman v. Cohen.

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 real estate contract constitute an unenforceable penalty as a matter of law because the seller's actual damages are readily ascertainable at the time of the breach?

Opinions:

Majority - McCain, Justice

No. A liquidated damages clause is not an unenforceable penalty merely because damages can be ascertained at the time of the breach; the proper inquiry is whether damages were readily ascertainable at the time the contract was formed. The court adopted the rationale from Hyman v. Cohen, which held that the uncertainty of damages should be assessed at the time of contract formation. Because the Florida real estate market fluctuates, a vendor's potential damages upon a breach are generally impossible to predict when a contract is signed. The prior rule from Pembroke v. Caudill, which looked at ascertainability at the time of breach, is receded from because it has a 'chilling effect' on such clauses. The court established a two-part approach: first, the clause is valid if damages were not readily ascertainable at formation; second, even if valid, a court in equity can relieve against the forfeiture if the amount is unconscionable compared to the actual damages sustained.

Analysis:

This decision resolved a significant conflict in Florida contract law regarding the test for enforceable liquidated damages. By favoring the 'time of formation' standard over the 'time of breach' standard, the court made liquidated damages clauses, especially deposit forfeitures in real estate contracts, much more likely to be upheld. This provides greater certainty to contracting parties and validates a common business practice. The decision's two-part test balances contractual freedom with equitable principles, ensuring that while parties can pre-determine damages, courts can still prevent unconscionable windfalls.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Hutchison v. Tompkins (1972)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"