liquidated damages clause in Florida

2000The Florida Supreme Court has stated that a liquidated damages clause may stand if "damages are not readily ascertainable at the time the contract is drawn, but ... [equity may] relieve against the forfeiture if it appears unconscionable in light of the circumstances existing at the time of breach." Hutchison v. Tompkins, 259 So.2d 129, 132 (Fla.1972).

1985We conclude that paragraph 6 of that agreement should not have been tested under the law argued by the parties, such as that in Hutchison v. Tompkins, supra , and Nelson v. Hansard, 143 Fla. 898 , 197 So. 513 (1940), relative to whether a liquidated damages clause may constitute an unlawful penalty.

2023If the circuit court determines the liquidated damages clause is not enforceable according to the two-prong test, then consistent with Lefemine, the circuit court shall hold a trial to determine the seller’s actual damages as a result of the buyer’s breach of contract. 573 So. 2d at 330 .

2023In Lefemine, the supreme court held that the default provision in a contract was not enforceable as a liquidated damages clause as a matter of law if there was an option to sue for damages or to retain a deposit. 573 So. 2d at 330 .

2023Gen., 883 So. 2d 379, 382 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“To be relieved of a default, a party must show excusable neglect, a meritorious defense, and due diligence.”); Hyman v. Cohen, 73 So. 2d 393, 401 (Fla. 1954) (instructing that a liquidated damages clause may be enforced where (1) the damages are not readily ascertainable at the time the contract is drawn and (2) the amount of liquidated damages is not “grossly disproportionate” to what might be expected to result from the 2 buyer’s breach); San Francisco Distrib.

2008In Hyman v. Cohen, 73 So.2d 393 (Fla.1954), the Florida Supreme Court established a test to determine if a liquidated damages clause will be upheld, or if it will be stricken because it is actually a penalty clause.

2007Bank of Orlando, 387 So.2d 393, 397 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (holding that "retention of 50% of the purchase price paid as a deposit by a vendee in default" was "sufficiently shocking" to state a cause of action); Berndt v. Bieberstein, 465 So.2d 1264, 1266 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (disallowing as unconscionable liquidated damages of over 55% of the purchase price).

1988Parrish v. Dougherty , citing Berndt v. Bieberstein, 465 So.2d 1264, 1265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).

2025See Manning v. Clark, 89 So. 2d 339, 341 (Fla. 1956) (holding that prejudgment interest on a liquidated damages claim should be calculated from the time the claim became due and was demanded or suit was commenced therefor); Butler Plaza, Inc. v. Allen Trovillion, Inc., 389 So. 2d 682, 683 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (holding that prejudgment interest for debt incurred by the defendant corporation for whom the plaintiff general contractor performed extra work outside the scope of the parties’ written contract should run from the dates of the plaintiff’s demand for payment); see also McLaughlin, 31 So.

2008Because there was no pre-suit demand date in the record, this court found that the proper, date to award interest from was the date appellees filed their lawsuit, citing Manning v. Clark, 89 So.2d 339, 341 (Fla.1956) (interest on a liquidated damages claim was to be calculated from the date the claim became due and was demanded, or the date suit was commenced).

2007Bank of Orlando, 387 So.2d 393, 397 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (holding that "retention of 50% of the purchase price paid as a deposit by a vendee in default" was "sufficiently shocking" to state a cause of action); Berndt v. Bieberstein, 465 So.2d 1264, 1266 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (disallowing as unconscionable liquidated damages of over 55% of the purchase price).

1989See, e.g., Osceola County v. Bumble Bee Construction, Inc., 479 So.2d 310 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); McNorton v. Pan American Bank of Orlando, 387 So.2d 393, 396 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), rev. denied, 392 So.2d 1377 (Fla. 1981), and cases cited therein.

2011Heavy Equip., Inc. v. Delint, Inc., 532 So.2d 23, 25 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).

1993Heavy Equipment, Inc. v. Delint, Inc., 532 So.2d 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Concrete Equipment Co. Inc. v. U.S. Leasing Corp., 439 So.2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Nicholas v. Miami Burglar Alarm Co., 266 So.2d 64 (Fla. DCA 1972), 297 So.2d 49 (appeal after remand); 339 So.2d 175 (affirmed in part, reversed in part) (1976).

2025See Manning v. Clark, 89 So. 2d 339, 341 (Fla. 1956) (holding that prejudgment interest on a liquidated damages claim should be calculated from the time the claim became due and was demanded or suit was commenced therefor); Butler Plaza, Inc. v. Allen Trovillion, Inc., 389 So. 2d 682, 683 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (holding that prejudgment interest for debt incurred by the defendant corporation for whom the plaintiff general contractor performed extra work outside the scope of the parties’ written contract should run from the dates of the plaintiff’s demand for payment); see also McLaughlin, 31 So.

2025See Manning v. Clark, 89 So. 2d 339, 341 (Fla. 1956) (holding that prejudgment interest on a liquidated damages claim should be calculated from the time the claim became due and was demanded or suit was commenced therefor); Butler Plaza, Inc. v. Allen Trovillion, Inc., 389 So. 2d 682, 683 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (holding that prejudgment interest for debt incurred by the defendant corporation for whom the plaintiff general contractor performed extra work outside the scope of the parties’ written contract should run from the dates of the plaintiff’s demand for payment); see also McLaughlin, 31 So.

2023Gen., 883 So. 2d 379, 382 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“To be relieved of a default, a party must show excusable neglect, a meritorious defense, and due diligence.”); Hyman v. Cohen, 73 So. 2d 393, 401 (Fla. 1954) (instructing that a liquidated damages clause may be enforced where (1) the damages are not readily ascertainable at the time the contract is drawn and (2) the amount of liquidated damages is not “grossly disproportionate” to what might be expected to result from the 2 buyer’s breach); San Francisco Distrib.

2023Ctr., LLC v. Stonemason Partners, LP, 183 So. 3d 391, 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (explaining that Florida courts addressing this issue have held that a forfeiture amount of 10% or less of the total purchase price is not unconscionable and upholding a forfeiture of $400K that amounted to 7.6% of the purchase price). 3

2007Corp., 471 So.2d at 116-17 (upholding forfeiture of cancellation fees totaling 11.82% under two contracts); Bloom v. Chandler, 530 So.2d 341 (Fla. 4th *542 DCA 1988) (upholding a liquidated damages clause wherein the sellers retained a $49,500 deposit as liquidated damages on a contract for $225,000 or 22% of the purchase price); Hooper, 417 So.2d at 318 (upholding liquidated damages provision calling for forfeiture of 13.3% of the purchase price); Johnson v. Wortzel, 517 So.2d 42, 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (approving forfeiture of 18.2% of contract price); Bradley v. Sanchez, 943 So.2d 218, 222 (

2007Corp., 471 So.2d at 116-17 (upholding forfeiture of cancellation fees totaling 11.82% under two contracts); Bloom v. Chandler, 530 So.2d 341 (Fla. 4th *542 DCA 1988) (upholding a liquidated damages clause wherein the sellers retained a $49,500 deposit as liquidated damages on a contract for $225,000 or 22% of the purchase price); Hooper, 417 So.2d at 318 (upholding liquidated damages provision calling for forfeiture of 13.3% of the purchase price); Johnson v. Wortzel, 517 So.2d 42, 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (approving forfeiture of 18.2% of contract price); Bradley v. Sanchez, 943 So.2d 218, 222 (

2007Corp., 471 So.2d at 116-17 (upholding forfeiture of cancellation fees totaling 11.82% under two contracts); Bloom v. Chandler, 530 So.2d 341 (Fla. 4th *542 DCA 1988) (upholding a liquidated damages clause wherein the sellers retained a $49,500 deposit as liquidated damages on a contract for $225,000 or 22% of the purchase price); Hooper, 417 So.2d at 318 (upholding liquidated damages provision calling for forfeiture of 13.3% of the purchase price); Johnson v. Wortzel, 517 So.2d 42, 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (approving forfeiture of 18.2% of contract price); Bradley v. Sanchez, 943 So.2d 218, 222 (

2007Corp., 471 So.2d at 116-17 (upholding forfeiture of cancellation fees totaling 11.82% under two contracts); Bloom v. Chandler, 530 So.2d 341 (Fla. 4th *542 DCA 1988) (upholding a liquidated damages clause wherein the sellers retained a $49,500 deposit as liquidated damages on a contract for $225,000 or 22% of the purchase price); Hooper, 417 So.2d at 318 (upholding liquidated damages provision calling for forfeiture of 13.3% of the purchase price); Johnson v. Wortzel, 517 So.2d 42, 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (approving forfeiture of 18.2% of contract price); Bradley v. Sanchez, 943 So.2d 218, 222 (

1997See Perez v. Aerospace Academy, Inc., 546 So.2d 1139, 1141 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). [5] The employer has denied that any further commissions were owed to the employee. [6] Generally, a party seeking a temporary injunction must establish: (1) a likelihood of irreparable harm and the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law; (2) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (3) that the threatened injury to the petitioner outweighs any possible harm to the respondent, and (4) that the granting of a temporary injunction will not disserve the public interest.