7 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2023 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland 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 |
|---|---|---|
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TALBOT CTY. v. Heistergreen2 sentences2023A valid liquidated damages clause: (1) must unambiguously provide for a specified sum; (2) must reasonably compensate a party “for the damages anticipated by the breach[;]” and (3) “may not be altered to correspond to actual damages determined after the fact[.]” Bd. of Educ. of Talbot Cnty. v. Heister, 392 Md. 140, 156 , 896 A.2d 342, 352 (2006) (cleaned up). 2023A valid liquidated damages clause: (1) must unambiguously provide for a specified sum; (2) must reasonably compensate a party “for the damages anticipated by the breach[;]” and (3) “may not be altered to correspond to actual damages determined after the fact[.]” Bd. of Educ. of Talbot Cnty. v. Heister, 392 Md. 140, 156 , 896 A.2d 342, 352 (2006) (cleaned up). | 2 | 5 |
Barrie School v. Patchgreen2 sentences2013Although it is true, as Critical Developments points out, that the Court of Appeals stated, in Barrie School, 401 Md. at 515 , 933 A.2d 382 , that “there exists no duty to mitigate damages where a valid liquidated damages clause exists,” that case is distinguishable, as to this particular issue, from the instant case because, here, unlike in Barrie School , the liquidated damages clause provides for a per diem amount rather than a single, fixed sum. 2013Therefore, our analysis in the case at bar is limited to the second essential element of a valid liquidated damages clause: that “the liquidated damages must reasonably be compensation for the damages anticipated by the breach.” Barrie School, 401 Md. at 509 , 933 A.2d 382 (quoting Heister, 392 Md. at 156 , 896 A.2d 342 ) (internal citations and punctuation omitted in Barrie). | 2 | 3 |
Barrie School v. Patchgreen2 sentences2023It is of course true that a valid liquidated damages clause normally provides the sole relief for a breach of the agreement, which “may not be altered to correspond to actual damages determined after the fact.” Barrie School v. Patch, 401 Md. 497, 514 (2007) (quoting Bd. Educ. 2013Although it is true, as Critical Developments points out, that the Court of Appeals stated, in Barrie School, 401 Md. at 515 , 933 A.2d 382 , that “there exists no duty to mitigate damages where a valid liquidated damages clause exists,” that case is distinguishable, as to this particular issue, from the instant case because, here, unlike in Barrie School , the liquidated damages clause provides for a per diem amount rather than a single, fixed sum. | 1 | 4 |
Massachusetts Indemnity & Life Insurance v. Dressergreen2 sentences2006Co. v. Dresser, 269 Md. 364, 368-69 , 306 A.2d 213 (1973)), we set forth the following three-part test outlining the essential features of a valid liquidated damages clause: (1) The clause “must provide ‘in clear and unambiguous terms’ for ‘a certain sum ’ ” (2) “[T]he liquidated damages must reasonably be compensation for the damages anticipated by the breach” (3) “[Liquidated damage clauses are by their nature mandatory binding agreements before the fact which may not be altered to correspond to actual damages determined after the fact.” *132 (Internal citations omitted); see also Dresser, s 2006Co. v. Dresser, 269 Md. 364, 368-69 , 306 A.2d 213 (1973)), we set forth the following three-part test outlining the essential features of a valid liquidated damages clause: (1) The clause “must provide ‘in clear and unambiguous terms’ for ‘a certain sum ’ ” (2) “[T]he liquidated damages must reasonably be compensation for the damages anticipated by the breach” (3) “[Liquidated damage clauses are by their nature mandatory binding agreements before the fact which may not be altered to correspond to actual damages determined after the fact.” *132 (Internal citations omitted); see also Dresser, s | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Willard Packaging Company, Inc. v. Javier
green
2 sentences2013It is well-settled that “[u]nder the principles of freedom of contract, parties have broad right to construct the terms of the contracts they enter into as they wish, providing the contract is neither illegal nor contrary to public policy.” Willard, 169 Md.App. at 122 , 899 A.2d 940 . 2013It is well-settled that “[u]nder the principles of freedom of contract, parties have broad right to construct the terms of the contracts they enter into as they wish, providing the contract is neither illegal nor contrary to public policy.” Willard, 169 Md.App. at 122 , 899 A.2d 940 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Smelkinson SYSCO v. Harrell
green
2 sentences2006Co. v. Dresser, 269 Md. 364, 368-69 , 306 A.2d 213 (1973)), we set forth the following three-part test outlining the essential features of a valid liquidated damages clause: (1) The clause “must provide ‘in clear and unambiguous terms’ for ‘a certain sum ’ ” (2) “[T]he liquidated damages must reasonably be compensation for the damages anticipated by the breach” (3) “[Liquidated damage clauses are by their nature mandatory binding agreements before the fact which may not be altered to correspond to actual damages determined after the fact.” *132 (Internal citations omitted); see also Dresser, s 2006Co. v. Dresser, 269 Md. 364, 368-69 , 306 A.2d 213 (1973)), we set forth the following three-part test outlining the essential features of a valid liquidated damages clause: (1) The clause “must provide ‘in clear and unambiguous terms’ for ‘a certain sum ’ ” (2) “[T]he liquidated damages must reasonably be compensation for the damages anticipated by the breach” (3) “[Liquidated damage clauses are by their nature mandatory binding agreements before the fact which may not be altered to correspond to actual damages determined after the fact.” *132 (Internal citations omitted); see also Dresser, s | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.