liquidated damages clause in New Jersey

2022Super. at 206 ).] However, "[u]ncertainty or difficulty in assessing damages is best viewed not as an independent test, but rather as an element of assessing the reasonableness of a liquidated damages clause." Ibid. (citations omitted).

2018However, this two-prong Westmount test "is best viewed not as an independent test, but rather as an element of assessing the reasonableness of a liquidated damages clause." Ibid. (citation omitted). "[T]he more uncertain the damages caused by a breach, the more latitude courts gave the parties on their estimate of damages." Metlife Capital Fin.

1997Although we do not consider the validity or enforceability of a liquidated damages clause in this case, we are reminded of Professor Corbin’s warning: “Penalties and forfeitures are not favored; and calling an outrageous penalty by the more kindly name of liquidated damages does not absolve it from its sin.” Defaulting Vendee, supra, 40 Yale L.J. at 1016; cf. Central Steel Drum Co. v. Gold Cooperage, Inc. supra, 200 N.J.Super. 251 , 491 A.2d 49 (considering validity of liquidated damages clause). [Id. at 517-18, 591 A.2d 932 .] Van Es v. Honeyleaf Properties, Inc., 253 N.J.Super. 566 , 602 A.2

1997Although we do not consider the validity or enforceability of a liquidated damages clause in this case, we are reminded of Professor Corbin’s warning: “Penalties and forfeitures are not favored; and calling an outrageous penalty by the more kindly name of liquidated damages does not absolve it from its sin.” Defaulting Vendee, supra, 40 Yale L.J. at 1016; cf. Central Steel Drum Co. v. Gold Cooperage, Inc. supra, 200 N.J.Super. 251 , 491 A.2d 49 (considering validity of liquidated damages clause). [Id. at 517-18, 591 A.2d 932 .] Van Es v. Honeyleaf Properties, Inc., 253 N.J.Super. 566 , 602 A.2

2013Applying the liberal standard that is applied to motions for dismissal pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e), see Printing Mart-Morristown, supra, 116 N.J. at 746 , 563 A.2d 31 , the appellate panel found that the complaint asserted CFA and negligent misrepresentation claims by alleging that “the landlords have imposed charges on their tenants, denominated as attorney’s fees, that exceed the landlords’ actual cost for in-house legal representation.” As pai’t of its analysis, the Appellate Division rejected defendants’ argument that the attorneys’ fee provision should be sustained because it was a liquidat

2013Applying the liberal standard that is applied to motions for dismissal pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e), see Printing Mart-Morristown, supra, 116 N.J. at 746 , 563 A.2d 31 , the appellate panel found that the complaint asserted CFA and negligent misrepresentation claims by alleging that “the landlords have imposed charges on their tenants, denominated as attorney’s fees, that exceed the landlords’ actual cost for in-house legal representation.” As pai’t of its analysis, the Appellate Division rejected defendants’ argument that the attorneys’ fee provision should be sustained because it was a liquidat

2011Quasi-contractual recovery on the basis of quantum meruit “ ‘rests on the equitable principle that a person shall not be allowed to enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another.’” Weichert Co. Realtors v. Ryan, 128 N.J. 427, 437 , 608 A.2d 280 (1992) (quoting Callano v. Oakwood Park Homes Corp., 91 N.J.Super. 105, 108 , 219 A.2d 332 (App.Div.1966)).

2011Quasi-contractual recovery on the basis of quantum meruit “ ‘rests on the equitable principle that a person shall not be allowed to enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another.’” Weichert Co. Realtors v. Ryan, 128 N.J. 427, 437 , 608 A.2d 280 (1992) (quoting Callano v. Oakwood Park Homes Corp., 91 N.J.Super. 105, 108 , 219 A.2d 332 (App.Div.1966)).

2011Quasi-contractual recovery on the basis of quantum meruit “ ‘rests on the equitable principle that a person shall not be allowed to enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another.’” Weichert Co. Realtors v. Ryan, 128 N.J. 427, 437 , 608 A.2d 280 (1992) (quoting Callano v. Oakwood Park Homes Corp., 91 N.J.Super. 105, 108 , 219 A.2d 332 (App.Div.1966)).

2011Quasi-contractual recovery on the basis of quantum meruit “ ‘rests on the equitable principle that a person shall not be allowed to enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another.’” Weichert Co. Realtors v. Ryan, 128 N.J. 427, 437 , 608 A.2d 280 (1992) (quoting Callano v. Oakwood Park Homes Corp., 91 N.J.Super. 105, 108 , 219 A.2d 332 (App.Div.1966)).

2007Id. at 76-77. *41 The Court of Appeals, Second District, in California reviewed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the defendant after determining that the CAP's forfeiture provisions did not violate section 201 and section 202 of the California Labor Code in Schachter v. Citigroup, Inc., 126 Cal.App. 4th 726 , 23 Cal.Rptr. 3d 920 (2 Dist.2005).

2007Id. at 76-77. *41 The Court of Appeals, Second District, in California reviewed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the defendant after determining that the CAP's forfeiture provisions did not violate section 201 and section 202 of the California Labor Code in Schachter v. Citigroup, Inc., 126 Cal.App. 4th 726 , 23 Cal.Rptr. 3d 920 (2 Dist.2005).

2005We have found no ease holding that a lien claimant has such limited protection. [ Id. at 556-57, 756 A.2d 608 .] We reach the same conclusion as to the liquidated damages claim ECP has against NEPCO.

1997Although we do not consider the validity or enforceability of a liquidated damages clause in this case, we are reminded of Professor Corbin’s warning: “Penalties and forfeitures are not favored; and calling an outrageous penalty by the more kindly name of liquidated damages does not absolve it from its sin.” Defaulting Vendee, supra, 40 Yale L.J. at 1016; cf. Central Steel Drum Co. v. Gold Cooperage, Inc. supra, 200 N.J.Super. 251 , 491 A.2d 49 (considering validity of liquidated damages clause). [Id. at 517-18, 591 A.2d 932 .] Van Es v. Honeyleaf Properties, Inc., 253 N.J.Super. 566 , 602 A.2

1997Although we do not consider the validity or enforceability of a liquidated damages clause in this case, we are reminded of Professor Corbin’s warning: “Penalties and forfeitures are not favored; and calling an outrageous penalty by the more kindly name of liquidated damages does not absolve it from its sin.” Defaulting Vendee, supra, 40 Yale L.J. at 1016; cf. Central Steel Drum Co. v. Gold Cooperage, Inc. supra, 200 N.J.Super. 251 , 491 A.2d 49 (considering validity of liquidated damages clause). [Id. at 517-18, 591 A.2d 932 .] Van Es v. Honeyleaf Properties, Inc., 253 N.J.Super. 566 , 602 A.2

1995Super. 566 , 357 A. 2d 37 (Law Div. 1976). [2] On reconsideration in Perry, 111 Wash. 2d 885 , 766 P. 2d 1096 , the Washington Supreme Court found it premature to determine the reasonableness of the liquidated damages clause, because that question, raised by the employee, had not been decided in the trial court.

1995Super. 566 , 357 A. 2d 37 (Law Div. 1976). [2] On reconsideration in Perry, 111 Wash. 2d 885 , 766 P. 2d 1096 , the Washington Supreme Court found it premature to determine the reasonableness of the liquidated damages clause, because that question, raised by the employee, had not been decided in the trial court.

1995Super. 566 , 357 A. 2d 37 (Law Div. 1976). [2] On reconsideration in Perry, 111 Wash. 2d 885 , 766 P. 2d 1096 , the Washington Supreme Court found it premature to determine the reasonableness of the liquidated damages clause, because that question, raised by the employee, had not been decided in the trial court.

1992Considering the nature of this project, Perini might have bargained for a “no damages for delay” clause, see Broadway Maintenance Corp. v. Rutgers, 90 N.J. 253 , 447 A.2d 906 (1982), or a liquidated damages clause in the contract.

1992Considering the nature of this project, Perini might have bargained for a “no damages for delay” clause, see Broadway Maintenance Corp. v. Rutgers, 90 N.J. 253 , 447 A.2d 906 (1982), or a liquidated damages clause in the contract.

1992If the contractor fails to complete the additional work, the owner’s remedy is to have someone else complete it and sue the contractor to recover the expense. [Id. at 1338.] That rule was applied in Monsen Engineering Co. v. TamiGithens, Inc., 219 N.J.Super. 241 , 530 A.2d 313 (App.Div.1987), a case involving a liquidated damages clause in a contract for the installation of heating systems in a public-housing project.

1992If the contractor fails to complete the additional work, the owner’s remedy is to have someone else complete it and sue the contractor to recover the expense. [Id. at 1338.] That rule was applied in Monsen Engineering Co. v. TamiGithens, Inc., 219 N.J.Super. 241 , 530 A.2d 313 (App.Div.1987), a case involving a liquidated damages clause in a contract for the installation of heating systems in a public-housing project.

1991By 1953 the Supreme Court of Wisconsin was able to state that its holding was “in accord with the trend of modern decisions which recognize that when the result of retention of moneys paid upon a contract by a vendee who later repudiates his obligation is a clear[ ] unjust enrichment of the vendor, the vendor may be required to return such part of the payments as exceeds the loss which the vendee’s default causes him.” Schwartz v. Syver, 264 Wis. 526, 531 , 59 N.W.2d 489, 492 .

1991By 1953 the Supreme Court of Wisconsin was able to state that its holding was “in accord with the trend of modern decisions which recognize that when the result of retention of moneys paid upon a contract by a vendee who later repudiates his obligation is a clear[ ] unjust enrichment of the vendor, the vendor may be required to return such part of the payments as exceeds the loss which the vendee’s default causes him.” Schwartz v. Syver, 264 Wis. 526, 531 , 59 N.W.2d 489, 492 .

1991In 1941 the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, in the context of a suit to recover a deposit by a buyer who had breached a real-estate contract, stated the common-law rule but recognized an “exception” allowing recovery for a defaulting vendee in the absence of a liquidated-damages clause “in certain instances where a person has received from another a benefit the retention of which would be unjust under some legal principle or situation which equity has established or recognized.” Seekins v. King, 66 R.I. 105, 110 , 17 A.2d 869, 871 .

1991In 1941 the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, in the context of a suit to recover a deposit by a buyer who had breached a real-estate contract, stated the common-law rule but recognized an “exception” allowing recovery for a defaulting vendee in the absence of a liquidated-damages clause “in certain instances where a person has received from another a benefit the retention of which would be unjust under some legal principle or situation which equity has established or recognized.” Seekins v. King, 66 R.I. 105, 110 , 17 A.2d 869, 871 .