Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2026 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Wasserman's Inc. v. Township of Middletowngreen2 sentences2026A-0441-24 37 "Treating reasonableness 'as the touchstone,' . . . the difficulty in assessing damages, intention of the parties, the actual damages sustained, and the bargaining power of the parties all affect the validity of a stipulated damages clause." Id. at 495 (citing Wasserman's, Inc. v. Twp. of Middletown, 137 N.J. 238, 250-54 (1994)). 2022The agreement at issue explicitly stated if defendant defaulted on the loan, John was entitled to five percent ownership of Chick Wrestler LLC "for each month that passes where there is no payment or remedy made to correct the unpaid balance." Although the question of whether a stipulated damages clause is enforceable "is one of law, it may require resolution of underlying factual issues." Wasserman's, 137 N.J. at 257 . | 4 | 10 |
MetLife v. Washington Ave. Assoc.green2 sentences2026A-0441-24 37 "Treating reasonableness 'as the touchstone,' . . . the difficulty in assessing damages, intention of the parties, the actual damages sustained, and the bargaining power of the parties all affect the validity of a stipulated damages clause." Id. at 495 (citing Wasserman's, Inc. v. Twp. of Middletown, 137 N.J. 238, 250-54 (1994)). 2020Assocs., 159 N.J. 484, 494 (1999).] The Court has held that "the difficulty in assessing damages, intention of the parties, the actual damages sustained, and the bargaining power of the parties all affect the validity of a stipulated damages clause," and that the "overall single test of validity" is whether the liquidated damages clause is "reasonable under the totality of the circumstances." Id. at 495 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 3 |
Westmount Country Club v. Kamenygreen2 sentences1997The Court made these remarks, which appear particularly pertinent to the case at hand: Although the Appellate Division has indicated that courts should determine the enforceability of a stipulated damages clause as of the time of the making of the contract, Westmount Country Club [v. Kameny], supra, 82 N.J.Super. [200] at 206, 197 A.2d 379 [(1964)], the modern trend is towards assessing reasonableness either at the time of contract formation or at the time of the breach. 1994Although the Appellate Division has indicated that courts should determine the enforceability of a stipulated damages clause as of the time of the making of the contract, Westmount Country Club, supra, 82 N.J.Super. at 206 , 197 A.2d 379 , the modern trend is towards assessing reasonableness either at the time of contract formation or at the time of the breach. | 1 | 5 |
Rosen v. Smith Barney, Inc.green1 sentence2022See Rosen v. Smith Barney, Inc., 195 N.J. 423, 427 (2008) ("[A] A-1199-20 23 contractual term fixing an unreasonably large liquidated damage amount is a penalty, which is unenforceable on grounds of public policy."). | 1 | 1 |
218-220 Market Street Corp. v. Krich-Radisco, Inc.green2 sentences1994Corp., supra, 124 N.J.L. at 304, 11 A.2d 109 ; Robinson v. Centenary Fund, 68 N.J.L. 723, 725-26 , 54 A. 416 (E. & A.1902). 1994Corp., supra, 124 N.J.L. at 304, 11 A.2d 109 ; Robinson v. Centenary Fund, 68 N.J.L. 723, 725-26 , 54 A. 416 (E. & A.1902). | 1 | 1 |
Haromy v. Sawyergreen2 sentences1994Thus, the party challenging a stipulated damages clause “must establish that its application amounts to a penalty.” Haromy, supra, 654 P.2d at 1023 . 1994Calamari & Perillo, supra, § 14-31 at 643; see, e.g., Mattvidi Assocs. v. Nationsbank of Va., 100 Md.App. 71 , 639 A.2d 228, 238 (1994) (noting that “[n]ot only is placing the burden of proof on the party seeking to invalidate a liquidated damages clause the majority rule, it is also the only rule consistent with normal principles of contract law”); Haromy v. Sawyer, 98 Nev. 544, 654 P.2d 1022, 1023 (1982) (observing' that “[generally, liquidated damage provisions are prima facie valid”); Wassenaar, supra, 331 N.W.2d at 367 (determining that “the party challenging the contract! ] carries the b | 1 | 1 |
Wassenaar v. Panosgreen1 sentence1994Calamari & Perillo, supra, § 14-31 at 643; see, e.g., Mattvidi Assocs. v. Nationsbank of Va., 100 Md.App. 71 , 639 A.2d 228, 238 (1994) (noting that “[n]ot only is placing the burden of proof on the party seeking to invalidate a liquidated damages clause the majority rule, it is also the only rule consistent with normal principles of contract law”); Haromy v. Sawyer, 98 Nev. 544, 654 P.2d 1022, 1023 (1982) (observing' that “[generally, liquidated damage provisions are prima facie valid”); Wassenaar, supra, 331 N.W.2d at 367 (determining that “the party challenging the contract! ] carries the b | 1 | 1 |
Mattvidi Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Nationsbank of Virginia, N.A.green2 sentences1994Calamari & Perillo, supra, § 14-31 at 643; see, e.g., Mattvidi Assocs. v. Nationsbank of Va., 100 Md.App. 71 , 639 A.2d 228, 238 (1994) (noting that “[n]ot only is placing the burden of proof on the party seeking to invalidate a liquidated damages clause the majority rule, it is also the only rule consistent with normal principles of contract law”); Haromy v. Sawyer, 98 Nev. 544, 654 P.2d 1022, 1023 (1982) (observing' that “[generally, liquidated damage provisions are prima facie valid”); Wassenaar, supra, 331 N.W.2d at 367 (determining that “the party challenging the contract! ] carries the b 1994Calamari & Perillo, supra, § 14-31 at 643; see, e.g., Mattvidi Assocs. v. Nationsbank of Va., 100 Md.App. 71 , 639 A.2d 228, 238 (1994) (noting that “[n]ot only is placing the burden of proof on the party seeking to invalidate a liquidated damages clause the majority rule, it is also the only rule consistent with normal principles of contract law”); Haromy v. Sawyer, 98 Nev. 544, 654 P.2d 1022, 1023 (1982) (observing' that “[generally, liquidated damage provisions are prima facie valid”); Wassenaar, supra, 331 N.W.2d at 367 (determining that “the party challenging the contract! ] carries the b | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
WESTMARK IV v. Teenform Associates
green
2 sentences2003Metlife, supra, 159 N.J. at 496, 502 , 732 A.2d at 503 ; Westmark, supra, 362 N.J.Super. at 340 , 827 A.2d at 1155-56 . 2003Metlife, supra, 159 N.J. at 496, 502 , 732 A.2d at 503 ; Westmark, supra, 362 N.J.Super. at 340 , 827 A.2d at 1155-56 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Robinson v. Centenary Fund & Preachers' Aid Society of the New Jersey Annual Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church
neutral
2 sentences1994Corp., supra, 124 N.J.L. at 304, 11 A.2d 109 ; Robinson v. Centenary Fund, 68 N.J.L. 723, 725-26 , 54 A. 416 (E. & A.1902). 1994Corp., supra, 124 N.J.L. at 304, 11 A.2d 109 ; Robinson v. Centenary Fund, 68 N.J.L. 723, 725-26 , 54 A. 416 (E. & A.1902). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Foont-Freedenfeld Corp. v. Electro-Protective Corp.
green
2 sentences1994Foont-Freedenfeld Corp. v. ElectroProtective Corp., 126 N.J.Super. 254, 258 , 314 A.2d 69 (App.Div. *254 1973), aff'd o.b., 64 N.J. 197 , 314 A.2d 68 (1974); Westmount Country Club, supra, 82 N.J.Super. at 206 , 197 A.2d 379 ; Goetz & Scott, supra, 77 Colum.L.Rev. at 588 (stating that “in the absence of bargaining unfairness, a stipulated damage clause reflects equivalent value”). -V- The purpose of a stipulated damages clause is not to compel the promisor to perform, but to compensate the promisee for non-performance. 1994Foont-Freedenfeld Corp. v. ElectroProtective Corp., 126 N.J.Super. 254, 258 , 314 A.2d 69 (App.Div. *254 1973), aff'd o.b., 64 N.J. 197 , 314 A.2d 68 (1974); Westmount Country Club, supra, 82 N.J.Super. at 206 , 197 A.2d 379 ; Goetz & Scott, supra, 77 Colum.L.Rev. at 588 (stating that “in the absence of bargaining unfairness, a stipulated damage clause reflects equivalent value”). -V- The purpose of a stipulated damages clause is not to compel the promisor to perform, but to compensate the promisee for non-performance. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Foont-Freedenfeld Corp. v. Electro-Protective Corp.
green
2 sentences1994Foont-Freedenfeld Corp. v. ElectroProtective Corp., 126 N.J.Super. 254, 258 , 314 A.2d 69 (App.Div. *254 1973), aff'd o.b., 64 N.J. 197 , 314 A.2d 68 (1974); Westmount Country Club, supra, 82 N.J.Super. at 206 , 197 A.2d 379 ; Goetz & Scott, supra, 77 Colum.L.Rev. at 588 (stating that “in the absence of bargaining unfairness, a stipulated damage clause reflects equivalent value”). -V- The purpose of a stipulated damages clause is not to compel the promisor to perform, but to compensate the promisee for non-performance. 1994Foont-Freedenfeld Corp. v. ElectroProtective Corp., 126 N.J.Super. 254, 258 , 314 A.2d 69 (App.Div. *254 1973), aff'd o.b., 64 N.J. 197 , 314 A.2d 68 (1974); Westmount Country Club, supra, 82 N.J.Super. at 206 , 197 A.2d 379 ; Goetz & Scott, supra, 77 Colum.L.Rev. at 588 (stating that “in the absence of bargaining unfairness, a stipulated damage clause reflects equivalent value”). -V- The purpose of a stipulated damages clause is not to compel the promisor to perform, but to compensate the promisee for non-performance. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.