About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

17 Miss. L.J. 62 (1945-1946)
The Assessment of Liquidated Damages under a Construction Contract

handle is hein.journals/mislj17 and id is 70 raw text is: MISSISSIPPI LAW JOURNAL THE ASSESSMENT OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES UNDER A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT E. Kemp Cathcart* The assessment of liquidated damages is, at this time, a problem of interest to all persons in the construction business, and to surety com- panies writing performance bonds on construction work, due to the fact that practically all contracts now contain provisions for such assessments under certain defined conditions. In the past, and before the great increase in the construction and building trade, the general tendency of the courts seems to have been to look upon contract provisions for liquidated damages with a certain amount of disfavor1 and, in many instances, to construe them as penalties not enforcible against the contractor or his surety.2 It is not the purpose of this paper to discuss the cases which distinguish liquidated damages from a penalty. It may be said, however, that while certain states have stat- utes providing that liquidated damages may be assessed only where the loss would be impossible of ascertainment, or very difficult of ascertain- ment,3 nevertheless, there has been a noticeable and gradual change in the decisions showing a tendency to uphold them rather than to construe them as being penal in nature. So long as the sum fixed as liquidated damages is not wholly disproportionate to the loss, the assessment is usu- ally allowed,4 unless there are other intervening causes which would pre- vent it; which causes, and their effect, will be hereinafter discussed. Liquidated damages will not be allowed under the following circum- stances, even though the amount thereof is not so disproportionate to the actual loss as to amount to a penalty: 1. Where the owner terminates the right of the contractor to pro- ceed with the work. 2. Where there has been a total abandonment of the work by a contractor, thereby requiring completion by another. 3. Where the delay in completion is attributable not only to the con- tractor, but to the owner as well. 4. Where the evidence is clear and uncontradictable that in spite of the delay, there was no loss to the owner therefrom. *Vice-President and Director of Bonding Division, Maryland Casualty Company, Baltimore. 125 C. J. S., DAMAGES, § 102 (b) ; 15 AM. JuR., DAMAGES, § 245. 2Van Buren v. Digges, 11 How. 771 (U. S. 1850); 15 AM. Jur., DAMAGES, § 245; 25 C. J. S., DAMAGES, § 102 (b). 325 C. J. S., DAMAGES, § 101. 4United States v. U. S. Engineering Company, 234 U. S. 236 (1914); 3 WILLISrON, CONTRACTS (rev. ed. 1938) § 2210; 15 AM. JuR., DAMAGES, §§ 240, 249. [VOL. XVII

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most