agreement violates some principle in Georgia

1993Additionally, AFLAC maintains that the damages provision of the contract establishes a penalty for the termination of the contract. *844 As we noted in Duke v. Williams, 197 Ga. App. 836, 838 ( 399 SE2d 544 ) (1990), “ ‘[i]f the parties agree in their contract what the damages for a breach shall be, they are said to be liquidated and, unless the agreement violates some principle of law, the parties are bound thereby.’ OCGA § 13-6-7.” Based upon our tripartite inquiry into such factors as the difficulty in the exact estimation of damages, the intention of the parties to provide for the damages,

1993Additionally, AFLAC maintains that the damages provision of the contract establishes a penalty for the termination of the contract. *844 As we noted in Duke v. Williams, 197 Ga. App. 836, 838 ( 399 SE2d 544 ) (1990), “ ‘[i]f the parties agree in their contract what the damages for a breach shall be, they are said to be liquidated and, unless the agreement violates some principle of law, the parties are bound thereby.’ OCGA § 13-6-7.” Based upon our tripartite inquiry into such factors as the difficulty in the exact estimation of damages, the intention of the parties to provide for the damages,

2021OCGA § 13-6-7 provides that “[i]f the parties agree in their contract what the damages for a breach shall be, they are said to be liquidated and, unless the agreement violates some principle of law, the parties are bound thereby.” And under Georgia law, “[i]n deciding whether a contract provision is enforceable as liquidated damages, three factors must exist.”7 Specifically, “[t]he injury must be difficult to estimate accurately, the parties must intend to provide damages instead of a penalty, and the 6 Benefield v. Tominich, 308 Ga. App. 605, 607 (1) ( 708 SE2d 563 ) (2011) (punctuation omitt

2021OCGA § 13-6-7 provides that “[i]f the parties agree in their contract what the damages for a breach shall be, they are said to be liquidated and, unless the agreement violates some principle of law, the parties are bound thereby.” And under Georgia law, “[i]n deciding whether a contract provision is enforceable as liquidated damages, three factors must exist.”7 Specifically, “[t]he injury must be difficult to estimate accurately, the parties must intend to provide damages instead of a penalty, and the 6 Benefield v. Tominich, 308 Ga. App. 605, 607 (1) ( 708 SE2d 563 ) (2011) (punctuation omitt

2010“If the parties agree in their contract what the damages for a breach shall be, they are said to be liquidated and, unless the agreement violates some principle of law, the parties are bound thereby.” OCGA § 13-6-7; see also Turner v. Atlanta Girls’ School, 288 Ga. App. 115, 116 ( 653 SE2d 380 ) (2007).

2010“If the parties agree in their contract what the damages for a breach shall be, they are said to be liquidated and, unless the agreement violates some principle of law, the parties are bound thereby.” OCGA § 13-6-7; see also Turner v. Atlanta Girls’ School, 288 Ga. App. 115, 116 ( 653 SE2d 380 ) (2007).

1987OCGA § 13-6-7 provides “ [i]f the parties agree in their contract what the damages for a breach shall be, they are said to be liquidated and, unless the agreement violates some principle of law, the parties are bound thereby.” “ ‘ “The language of the instrument itself must of course be primarily looked to and considered, though the use of the words ‘penalty’ or ‘liquidated damages’ will by no means always be conclusive” . . .’” Martin v. Lott, 144 Ga. 660, 664 ( 87 SE 902 ) (1915).

1987OCGA § 13-6-7 provides “ [i]f the parties agree in their contract what the damages for a breach shall be, they are said to be liquidated and, unless the agreement violates some principle of law, the parties are bound thereby.” “ ‘ “The language of the instrument itself must of course be primarily looked to and considered, though the use of the words ‘penalty’ or ‘liquidated damages’ will by no means always be conclusive” . . .’” Martin v. Lott, 144 Ga. 660, 664 ( 87 SE 902 ) (1915).

1976Code Ann. § 20-1402; Chadwick v. Dolinoff, 207 Ga. 702, 703 (1) ( 64 SE2d 76 ); Ga. Ports Authority v. Norair Engineering Corp., 127 Ga. App. 864 ( 195 SE2d 199 ).

1976Code Ann. § 20-1402; Chadwick v. Dolinoff, 207 Ga. 702, 703 (1) ( 64 SE2d 76 ); Ga. Ports Authority v. Norair Engineering Corp., 127 Ga. App. 864 ( 195 SE2d 199 ).

1916If the parties agree, in their contract, what the damages for a breach shall be, they are said to be liquidated; and unless the agreement violates some principle of law, the parties are bound thereby.” And section 4391 reads: “Penalties in bonds are not liquidated damages; and even if called such, yet if it appears unreasonable and not so actually intended by the parties, the law will give only the actual damages, and in all cases where the damage is capable of .computation, and is not uncertain in its character, such stipulations will be declared to be penalties.” In the case of Allison v. Du

1916If the parties agree, in their contract, what the damages for a breach shall be, they are said to be liquidated; and unless the agreement violates some principle of law, the parties are bound thereby.” And section 4391 reads: “Penalties in bonds are not liquidated damages; and even if called such, yet if it appears unreasonable and not so actually intended by the parties, the law will give only the actual damages, and in all cases where the damage is capable of .computation, and is not uncertain in its character, such stipulations will be declared to be penalties.” In the case of Allison v. Du

2021OCGA § 13-6-7 provides that “[i]f the parties agree in their contract what the damages for a breach shall be, they are said to be liquidated and, unless the agreement violates some principle of law, the parties are bound thereby.” And under Georgia law, “[i]n deciding whether a contract provision is enforceable as liquidated damages, three factors must exist.”7 Specifically, “[t]he injury must be difficult to estimate accurately, the parties must intend to provide damages instead of a penalty, and the 6 Benefield v. Tominich, 308 Ga. App. 605, 607 (1) ( 708 SE2d 563 ) (2011) (punctuation omitt

2021OCGA § 13-6-7 provides that “[i]f the parties agree in their contract what the damages for a breach shall be, they are said to be liquidated and, unless the agreement violates some principle of law, the parties are bound thereby.” And under Georgia law, “[i]n deciding whether a contract provision is enforceable as liquidated damages, three factors must exist.”7 Specifically, “[t]he injury must be difficult to estimate accurately, the parties must intend to provide damages instead of a penalty, and the 6 Benefield v. Tominich, 308 Ga. App. 605, 607 (1) ( 708 SE2d 563 ) (2011) (punctuation omitt

2021OCGA § 13-6-7 provides that “[i]f the parties agree in their contract what the damages for a breach shall be, they are said to be liquidated and, unless the agreement violates some principle of law, the parties are bound thereby.” And under Georgia law, “[i]n deciding whether a contract provision is enforceable as liquidated damages, three factors must exist.”7 Specifically, “[t]he injury must be difficult to estimate accurately, the parties must intend to provide damages instead of a penalty, and the 6 Benefield v. Tominich, 308 Ga. App. 605, 607 (1) ( 708 SE2d 563 ) (2011) (punctuation omitt

2021Corp. v. ALR Oglethorpe, LLC, 336 Ga. App. 360, 363 (1) ( 785 SE2d 38 ) (2016); see Se.

2021Corp. v. ALR Oglethorpe, LLC, 336 Ga. App. 360, 363 (1) ( 785 SE2d 38 ) (2016); see Se.

2016Southeastern Land Fund, Inc. v. Real Estate World, Inc., 237 Ga. 227, 230 ( 227 SE2d 340 ) (1976); Alexander v. Steining, 197 Ga. App. 328, 329-330 (2) ( 398 SE2d 390 ) (1990).

2016Southeastern Land Fund, Inc. v. Real Estate World, Inc., 237 Ga. 227, 230 ( 227 SE2d 340 ) (1976); Alexander v. Steining, 197 Ga. App. 328, 329-330 (2) ( 398 SE2d 390 ) (1990).

2016SeeOCGA § 13-6-7 (“If the parties agree in their contract what the damages for a breach shall be, they are said to be liquidated and, unless the agreement violates some principle of law, the parties are bound thereby.”); 2010-1 SFG Venture LLC v. Lee Bank & Trust Co., 332 Ga. App. 894, 906 (3) (b) ( 775 SE2d 243 ) (2015) (“Aliquidated damages provision is an agreement between the parties to limit recovery for a breach of the contract to a specified amount.”) (footnote omitted).

2016SeeOCGA § 13-6-7 (“If the parties agree in their contract what the damages for a breach shall be, they are said to be liquidated and, unless the agreement violates some principle of law, the parties are bound thereby.”); 2010-1 SFG Venture LLC v. Lee Bank & Trust Co., 332 Ga. App. 894, 906 (3) (b) ( 775 SE2d 243 ) (2015) (“Aliquidated damages provision is an agreement between the parties to limit recovery for a breach of the contract to a specified amount.”) (footnote omitted).

2013We disagree. 6 (Punctuation omitted; emphasis in original.) Choice Hotels Intl. v. Ocmulgee Fields, 222 Ga. App. 185, 187 (1) ( 474 SE2d 56 ) (1996). 8 If the parties agree in their contract what the damages for a breach shall be, they are said to be liquidated and, unless the agreement violates some principle of law, the parties are bound thereby.

2013We disagree. 6 (Punctuation omitted; emphasis in original.) Choice Hotels Intl. v. Ocmulgee Fields, 222 Ga. App. 185, 187 (1) ( 474 SE2d 56 ) (1996). 8 If the parties agree in their contract what the damages for a breach shall be, they are said to be liquidated and, unless the agreement violates some principle of law, the parties are bound thereby.

2000Personnel v. Trizec Properties, 212 Ga. App. 600, 602 (2) ( 442 SE2d 783 ) (1994) (where measure of damages is not equivalent to “landlord’s costs” under a lease, sum stipulated is not reasonable preestimate of probable loss resulting from breach); Roswell Properties v. Salle, 208 Ga. App. 202, 206 (3) ( 430 SE2d 404 ) (1993) (clause drafted in terms of forfeiting an unspecified sum of earnest money was unenforceable).

2000Personnel v. Trizec Properties, 212 Ga. App. 600, 602 (2) ( 442 SE2d 783 ) (1994) (where measure of damages is not equivalent to “landlord’s costs” under a lease, sum stipulated is not reasonable preestimate of probable loss resulting from breach); Roswell Properties v. Salle, 208 Ga. App. 202, 206 (3) ( 430 SE2d 404 ) (1993) (clause drafted in terms of forfeiting an unspecified sum of earnest money was unenforceable).

2000Personnel v. Trizec Properties, 212 Ga. App. 600, 602 (2) ( 442 SE2d 783 ) (1994) (where measure of damages is not equivalent to “landlord’s costs” under a lease, sum stipulated is not reasonable preestimate of probable loss resulting from breach); Roswell Properties v. Salle, 208 Ga. App. 202, 206 (3) ( 430 SE2d 404 ) (1993) (clause drafted in terms of forfeiting an unspecified sum of earnest money was unenforceable).

2000Personnel v. Trizec Properties, 212 Ga. App. 600, 602 (2) ( 442 SE2d 783 ) (1994) (where measure of damages is not equivalent to “landlord’s costs” under a lease, sum stipulated is not reasonable preestimate of probable loss resulting from breach); Roswell Properties v. Salle, 208 Ga. App. 202, 206 (3) ( 430 SE2d 404 ) (1993) (clause drafted in terms of forfeiting an unspecified sum of earnest money was unenforceable).

1993Additionally, AFLAC maintains that the damages provision of the contract establishes a penalty for the termination of the contract. *844 As we noted in Duke v. Williams, 197 Ga. App. 836, 838 ( 399 SE2d 544 ) (1990), “ ‘[i]f the parties agree in their contract what the damages for a breach shall be, they are said to be liquidated and, unless the agreement violates some principle of law, the parties are bound thereby.’ OCGA § 13-6-7.” Based upon our tripartite inquiry into such factors as the difficulty in the exact estimation of damages, the intention of the parties to provide for the damages,

1993Additionally, AFLAC maintains that the damages provision of the contract establishes a penalty for the termination of the contract. *844 As we noted in Duke v. Williams, 197 Ga. App. 836, 838 ( 399 SE2d 544 ) (1990), “ ‘[i]f the parties agree in their contract what the damages for a breach shall be, they are said to be liquidated and, unless the agreement violates some principle of law, the parties are bound thereby.’ OCGA § 13-6-7.” Based upon our tripartite inquiry into such factors as the difficulty in the exact estimation of damages, the intention of the parties to provide for the damages,

1986See Krupp Realty Co. v. Joel, 168 Ga. App. 480 (1) ( 309 SE2d 641 ) (1983); Gibson v. Sheriff, 155 Ga. App. 578 ( 271 SE2d 710 ) (1980); OCGA § 13-6-7.

1986See Krupp Realty Co. v. Joel, 168 Ga. App. 480 (1) ( 309 SE2d 641 ) (1983); Gibson v. Sheriff, 155 Ga. App. 578 ( 271 SE2d 710 ) (1980); OCGA § 13-6-7.

1980Code Ann. § 20-1402; [Cits.]’ [Cit.]” Foster v. Economy Developers, 146 Ga. App. 282, 283 ( 246 SE2d 366 ) (1978); Ga. Ports Authority v. Norair Eng.

1980Code Ann. § 20-1402; [Cits.]’ [Cit.]” Foster v. Economy Developers, 146 Ga. App. 282, 283 ( 246 SE2d 366 ) (1978); Ga. Ports Authority v. Norair Eng.

1934“Penalties in bonds are not liquidated damages; and even if called such, yet, if it appears unreasonable and not so actually intended by the parties, the law will give only the actual damages, and in all cases where the damage is capable of computation, and is not uncertain in its character, such stipulations will be declared to be penalties.” Civil Code, § 4391; Heard v. Dooly County, 101 Ga. 619, 626 ( 28 S. E. 986 ).

1934“Penalties in bonds are not liquidated damages; and even if called such, yet, if it appears unreasonable and not so actually intended by the parties, the law will give only the actual damages, and in all cases where the damage is capable of computation, and is not uncertain in its character, such stipulations will be declared to be penalties.” Civil Code, § 4391; Heard v. Dooly County, 101 Ga. 619, 626 ( 28 S. E. 986 ).