Secrist v. NATL. SERV. INDUSTRIES, INC.
395 So. 2d 1280 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a divisible liquidated damages clause is found to be partially excessive at the time of breach, a court may enforce the reasonable portion of the clause while refusing to enforce the excessive, unconscionable portion.
Facts:
- In December 1975, Geraldine Secrist and National Service Industries, Inc. (NSI) entered into a three-year contract for NSI to provide laundry and linen service for Secrist's nursing home.
- The contract contained a liquidated damages clause stipulating that upon early termination, Secrist would owe 40% of the gross receipts for the unexpired term, specified as 30% for overhead and 10% for profits.
- As part of the initial agreement, NSI agreed to purchase Secrist's existing inventory of linens for $3737.61, which it then picked up.
- In March 1977, after approximately 15 months of service, Secrist unilaterally terminated the contract, with 20 months remaining on the term.
- At the time of termination, Secrist had an outstanding, unpaid bill for services NSI had already rendered, which testimony established was $4212.54.
Procedural Posture:
- National Service Industries, Inc. (NSI) sued Geraldine Secrist in a Florida trial court for breach of contract, seeking an outstanding balance and liquidated damages.
- Secrist filed an answer and a counterclaim for money NSI owed her for her linen inventory.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court entered a final judgment awarding NSI damages for past services and for lost profits under the liquidated damages clause, but found the overhead portion of the clause excessive and awarded nothing for it. The court also awarded Secrist a partial recovery on her counterclaim.
- Secrist, as appellant, appealed the final judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
- NSI, as appellee, filed a cross-appeal challenging the trial court's refusal to award damages for overhead.
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 trial court err by enforcing a portion of a divisible liquidated damages clause deemed reasonable (lost profits) while refusing to enforce another portion deemed excessive (overhead), rather than voiding the entire clause as a penalty?
Opinions:
Majority - Boardman, J.
No. A trial court does not err by enforcing a reasonable, divisible portion of a liquidated damages clause while invalidating an excessive portion. Citing Hutchison v. Tompkins, the court explained that where damages are not readily ascertainable at the time of contracting, a court may use its equity powers to relieve a party from a liquidated sum if it appears unconscionable at the time of breach. The fact that damages may be excessive at breach does not automatically render the entire clause an unenforceable penalty. In this case, the liquidated damages provision was divisible into two distinct parts: overhead (30%) and profits (10%). The trial court found the overhead portion excessive but the profit portion reasonable. Therefore, it acted properly by severing the clause and enforcing only the reasonable part (lost profits) while awarding nothing for the unsubstantiated and excessive overhead claim.
Analysis:
This decision refines the treatment of liquidated damages clauses in Florida by confirming that they are not subject to an all-or-nothing analysis. By permitting courts to sever and enforce reasonable components of a divisible clause, the ruling provides judicial flexibility and promotes fairness. It prevents a non-breaching party from losing all stipulated damages just because one component is deemed penal, while also protecting the breaching party from unconscionable penalties. This encourages more precise drafting of liquidated damages provisions, potentially breaking them down into justifiable components like lost profits, overhead, and other specific costs.
