NPS, LLC v. Minihane
886 N.E.2d 670, 2008 Mass. LEXIS 247, 451 Mass. 417 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An acceleration clause requiring payment of the entire remaining balance of a multi-year license agreement upon default is an enforceable liquidated damages provision if, at the time of contracting, actual damages were difficult to ascertain and the sum represents a reasonable forecast of potential damages. When such a provision is enforceable, the non-breaching party has no duty to mitigate damages.
Facts:
- In 2002, NPS, LLC (NPS), the developer of Gillette Stadium, entered into a ten-year license agreement with Paul Minihane for two luxury club seats.
- The agreement required Minihane to pay $3,750 per seat annually for ten seasons, from 2002 to 2011.
- The contract included an acceleration clause stating that if Minihane defaulted on a payment, the entire unpaid balance for all remaining years of the license would become immediately due and payable.
- Minihane paid a $7,500 security deposit and an additional $2,000 toward the 2002 season's license fee.
- Minihane and his guests used the tickets for all but one of the 2002 preseason and regular season home games.
- After the initial payments, Minihane made no further payments for the 2002 season or any subsequent seasons.
Procedural Posture:
- NPS, LLC sued Paul Minihane in the Superior Court, seeking to enforce the acceleration clause after Minihane defaulted on the license agreement.
- After a bench trial, the Superior Court judge ruled that the liquidated damages provision was an unenforceable penalty because the amount was 'grossly disproportionate to a reasonable estimate of actual damages'.
- The trial court judge then took further evidence on actual damages and awarded NPS $6,000.
- NPS, the plaintiff, appealed the trial court's decision.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts transferred the case from the intermediate appellate court on its own motion.
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 an acceleration clause in a ten-year license agreement, which requires the full balance of unpaid fees for the remainder of the term to be paid immediately upon default, an enforceable liquidated damages provision rather than an unenforceable penalty?
Opinions:
Majority - Cowin, J.
Yes. An acceleration clause requiring payment of the full remaining contract balance upon default is an enforceable liquidated damages provision, not an unenforceable penalty. The provision will be enforced if two criteria are met: 1) at the time of contracting, actual damages from a breach were difficult to ascertain, and 2) the agreed-upon sum is a reasonable forecast of expected damages. Here, the future demand for luxury seats was variable and unpredictable at the time of contracting, depending on team performance and other factors, making damages difficult to ascertain. The total amount due under the acceleration clause is simply the total amount Minihane would have paid had he performed his obligations, making it a reasonable forecast of damages from a worst-case scenario where NPS could not resell the seats. The burden was on Minihane to prove the amount was 'unreasonably and grossly disproportionate,' and he failed to do so. Furthermore, where a liquidated damages provision is enforceable, the concept of mitigation is irrelevant because the parties have already agreed on a remedy.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the enforceability of acceleration clauses as valid liquidated damages provisions in long-term service and license agreements, extending the logic previously applied to commercial leases. It reinforces the 'no second look' doctrine, confirming that the reasonableness of the damages forecast must be judged at the time of contract formation, not with the benefit of hindsight. The court also establishes a clear rule for Massachusetts that mitigation of damages is irrelevant when a liquidated damages clause is found to be valid, providing certainty for contracting parties by precluding post-breach conduct from altering the agreed-upon remedy.
