Manchester Dairy System, Inc. v. Hayward
1926 N.H. LEXIS 5, 82 N.H. 193, 132 A. 12 (1926)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may grant equitable relief, such as an injunction, to enforce a cooperative marketing agreement, even if the contract contains a liquidated damages clause, when the legal remedy is inadequate because the breach would cause irreparable harm to the cooperative's existence and the parties intended the damages clause to be security for performance, not an alternative to it.
Facts:
- A dairy farmer (the defendant) entered into a membership contract with a cooperative marketing association (the plaintiff).
- The contract was part of a larger agreement among all producer members, obligating each to sell and deliver all their dairy products exclusively to the association.
- The association was, in turn, obligated to resell the collective products at the best market price and distribute proceeds back to the members, minus operational costs.
- The contract expressly forbade the association from purchasing milk on the open market to replace any product a member failed to deliver.
- The agreement contained a clause stipulating that a breaching member would pay five dollars per cow as liquidated damages.
- The contract also included a clause stating that in the event of a breach, the association was entitled to seek injunctive relief or a decree of specific performance.
- The defendant member subsequently breached the contract by withholding his dairy products from the association.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff cooperative association filed a bill in equity against the defendant member in the trial court.
- The association sought a decree for specific performance and a permanent injunction to prevent the member from marketing his dairy products in violation of their contract.
- The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, challenging the court's power to grant equitable relief.
- The trial court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss.
- The trial court also denied the plaintiff's requests for both specific performance and an injunction, finding the latter remedy unreasonable.
- The trial court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff five hundred dollars in expenses.
- The defendant excepted to the denial of his motion to dismiss and to the order for expenses; the plaintiff excepted to the denial of its prayer for an injunction, bringing the case before this appellate court.
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 cooperative marketing agreement preclude the court from granting an injunction to prevent a member's breach when that breach would cause irreparable harm to the cooperative and the agreement also explicitly provides for equitable remedies?
Opinions:
Majority - The Court (unnamed in text)
No. A liquidated damages clause does not prevent the court from granting an injunction where the legal remedy is inadequate and the parties did not intend the clause to be an exclusive alternative to performance. The court has equitable jurisdiction because the remedy at law is inadequate. A single member's breach threatens the entire cooperative structure, as it could encourage other members to withdraw, impairing the association's ability to fulfill its own contracts and function effectively. The resulting damage to the cooperative's viability is impossible to measure in monetary terms, thus constituting irreparable injury. The contract's prohibition on buying replacement milk makes each member's supply unique and essential. Furthermore, the liquidated damages clause was not intended as an optional 'buy-out' of the performance obligation. The contract's core purpose—collective marketing—depends on member compliance, making performance the 'gist of the contract.' The inclusion of a separate clause explicitly granting the right to seek injunctive relief serves as persuasive evidence that the parties intended the damages clause as an additional security for performance, not an alternative remedy.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the special status of cooperative marketing agreements in contract law, recognizing that their communal and interdependent nature makes them particularly vulnerable to breaches by individual members. The ruling establishes that courts will look past the mere presence of a liquidated damages clause to determine the parties' true intent regarding remedies. It broadens the concept of 'irreparable harm' beyond the uniqueness of a specific chattel to include systemic damage to an organization's structure and purpose. This precedent provides a powerful enforcement tool for cooperatives, allowing them to seek injunctions to compel member compliance, thereby protecting the viability of the entire collective enterprise.
