liquidated damages clause in North Carolina

2019See Bradshaw v. Milliken , 173 N.C. 432 , 435, 92 S.E.2d 161 , 163 (1917) ("[T]he parties [to a contract], being informed as to the facts and circumstances, are better able than any one else to determine what would be a fair and reasonable compensation for a breach[.]"). 4 Defendants have therefore failed to demonstrate the existence of any genuine issue of material fact that would preclude the enforcement of the liquidated damages clause as a matter of law.

1988Defendant argues, citing Bradshaw v. Millikin, 173 N.C. 432 , 92 S.E. 161 (1917), that the liquidated damages clause in this Agreement is "a very detailed provision setting up payment amounts and dates," and it is clear that the parties intended to provide the defendant with the "alternative to perform or pay." In Bradshaw , however, the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction under the usual rule that "[t]he mere insertion in the contract of a clause describing the sum to be recovered for a breach as liquidated damages ... will not exclude the equitable remedy, and is rega

2026“The party seeking to invalidate a liquidated damages clause bears the burden of proving the provision is invalid.” WFC Lynnwood I LLC v. Lee of Raleigh, Inc., 259 N.C.

2021“The party seeking to invalidate the liquidated damages clause bears the burden of proving the provision invalid.” WFC Lynnwood I LLC v. Lee of Raleigh, Inc., 259 N.C.

2017See Knutton v. Cofield , 273 N.C. 355 (1968) ("The phrase 'liquidated damages' means a sum stipulated and agreed upon by the parties, at the time of entering into a contract, as being payable as compensation for injuries in the event of a breach.["] ) Because the contract between the parties contained no liquidated damages provision, and the Complaint did not allege a liquidated damages claim for relief, the Defendant is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) from that portion of the default judgment awarding damages for liquidated damages.

2009To determine whether a provision is a liquidated damages clause or a penalty, the Court looks to the “nature of the contract, and its words, and tr[ies] to ascertain the intentions of the parties . . . .” Knutton v. Cofield, 273 N.C. 355, 361 , 160 S.E.2d 29, 34 (1968).

2019Id. at 131-32, 641 S.E.2d at 713-14 (holding the party seeking to invalidate a liquidated damages clause bears the burden of proving the provision is invalid); N.C.P.I. - Civ. 503.94, 503.97.

2018Seven Seventeen HB Charlotte Corp. v. Shrine Bowl of the Carolinas, Inc. , 182 N.C.

2009City of Kinston, 299 N.C. at 620, 146 S.E.2d at 662 .

2002App. 379, 384-85 , 496 S.E.2d 795, 799 (1998) (affirming grant of summary judgment because the liquidated damages clause protected plaintiffs expectation interest and there was “no evidence that plaintiff exercised a superior bargaining position in the negotiation of the liquidated damages clause, [and therefore] no genuine issue of material fact exist[ed] as to its reasonableness”).

1987Virtually every reported case in North Carolina analyzing a liquidated damages clause refers to a “sum fixed by contract,” Bradshaw v. Millikin, 173 N.C. 432, 435 , 92 S.E. 161, 163 (1917); or a “sum specified,” Brenner v. School House, Ltd., 302 N.C. 207, 214 , 274 S.E. 2d 206, 211 (1981); or a “sum certain,” Horn v. Poindexter, 176 N.C. 620, 621 , 97 S.E. 653, 653 (1918).

1987Virtually every reported case in North Carolina analyzing a liquidated damages clause refers to a “sum fixed by contract,” Bradshaw v. Millikin, 173 N.C. 432, 435 , 92 S.E. 161, 163 (1917); or a “sum specified,” Brenner v. School House, Ltd., 302 N.C. 207, 214 , 274 S.E. 2d 206, 211 (1981); or a “sum certain,” Horn v. Poindexter, 176 N.C. 620, 621 , 97 S.E. 653, 653 (1918).

1987Virtually every reported case in North Carolina analyzing a liquidated damages clause refers to a “sum fixed by contract,” Bradshaw v. Millikin, 173 N.C. 432, 435 , 92 S.E. 161, 163 (1917); or a “sum specified,” Brenner v. School House, Ltd., 302 N.C. 207, 214 , 274 S.E. 2d 206, 211 (1981); or a “sum certain,” Horn v. Poindexter, 176 N.C. 620, 621 , 97 S.E. 653, 653 (1918).

1987Virtually every reported case in North Carolina analyzing a liquidated damages clause refers to a “sum fixed by contract,” Bradshaw v. Millikin, 173 N.C. 432, 435 , 92 S.E. 161, 163 (1917); or a “sum specified,” Brenner v. School House, Ltd., 302 N.C. 207, 214 , 274 S.E. 2d 206, 211 (1981); or a “sum certain,” Horn v. Poindexter, 176 N.C. 620, 621 , 97 S.E. 653, 653 (1918).