Skip to main content

The BUSKLAW October Newsletter: Liquidated Damages Must be Reasonable to be Enforceable

                                                   This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC By-SA

In last month's newsletter, we determined that Michigan law doesn't recognize the concept that "unreasonable" or adhesion contracts are unenforceable. But there is a caveat: a liquidated damages contractual provision must be reasonable to be enforceable. 

A liquidated damages provision is a term of art in the legal world. It applies when, according to Professor Bryan Garner, the parties to a contract agree in advance on the measure of damages to be assessed if a party defaults. Liquidated damages provisions are common in employee non-competition agreements, and it was that clause in one such agreement that Kent County Circuit Court Judge Christopher Yates examined in the case of Alpha Automotive v Cunningham Chrysler of Edinboro.

The facts of the case are simple. Cunningham is a car dealer who contracted with Alpha to conduct promotional events to sell Cunningham's cars. The agreement contained mutual non-solicitation provisions that barred each side from poaching the other's employees. After the promotional events ended, Alpha accused Cunningham of taking two of its employees in breach of the contract. After Judge Yates found that Cunningham had indeed breached the contract by hiring Alpha's employees, Alpha asked the Court to enforce the following liquidated damages provision for each employee that Cunningham "stole" from Alpha:

[Cunningham will pay Alpha] an agency or recruitment fee of $100,000, such amount representing the reasonable value of said individual's specialized training and by potential earnings to Alpha.

Judge Yates cogently summarized Michigan law on the enforceability of liquidated damages provisions:
  • The amount of the liquidated damages must be reasonable in relation to the possible injury suffered and not unconscionable or excessive. If the liquidated damages number is excessive, the provision is a penalty and thus unenforceable. 
  • A liquidated damages provision is particularly appropriate where actual damages are uncertain and difficult to ascertain.
In concluding that Alpha was entitled to $200,000 in liquidated damages from Cunningham, Judge Yates examined Alpha's profit and loss statements proving that Alpha earned around $113K from its work for Cunningham in 2014, but that income evaporated after Cunningham hired the two Alpha employees and then decided to perform promotional events itself in 2015. 

And just to close the loop, Judge Yates found that although the Rory decision (see my September post) rejected the concept that "unreasonable" or adhesion contracts are unenforceable, the same analysis doesn't apply to liquidated damages provisions based on an unpublished (thus having no precedential value) Michigan Court of Appeals case decided after RoryBut the premise that an unpublished appellate court decision holding that Rory doesn't apply to liquidated damages provisions is weak. How can judges get away with this? There are two answers. First, they can and do because the law - like everything else in life - is messy imprecise! Second, the doctrine affirmed in Rory that a contract is "made to be kept" despite being "unreasonable" is just as enshrined in U.S. contract law as the concept that a liquidated damages clause must be reasonable in amount to be enforceable.   

Do your contracts contain liquidated damages provisions? Have you hired expert legal counsel to make sure that they are valid?   
  ____________________________________
If you find this post worthwhile, please consider sharing it with your colleagues. The link to this blog is www.busklaw.blogspot.com and my website is www.busklaw.com. And my email address is busklaw@charter.net. Thanks!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The BUSKLAW May Newsletter: Is There a Moral Imperative to Plain English? Part 1 - Examples

"The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed." 

Thus begins Stephen King's epic story of the gunslinger, Roland Deschain, and the popular Dark Tower series of novels describing his adventures. But King didn't have to write this sentence that way; he could have consulted with the typical lawyer, politician, or company PR department first. Had he done so, the sentence may have appeared so:

"The bad hombre who was dressed mostly in dark clothing and running fast across an arid land was pursued by a multi-armed, extremely dangerous, and notorious vigilante."
The difference in these two sentences is clear. King's concise short sentence creates an image that grabs the reader's attention and raises provocative questions. Who is the man in black? Who is the gunslinger? Why is he after the man in black? But the Bizarro World Stephen King sentence - with its ethnic slur, passive voice, ambiguity, suppositions, and superfluous adjectives …

The BUSKLAW July Newsletter: Horsing Around with Non-Compete Clauses

Non-compete provisions are part and parcel of many employment agreements. But these provisions must be carefully drafted to be enforceable. There are three sure-fire ways to have a court invalidate your non-compete clause without much judicial cogitation:
Failure to provide a reasonable duration for the clause;Failure to restrict the operation of the clause to a reasonable geographic area; andFailure to establish a protectable business interest as the subject of the clause.The first point is easy to grasp. In Michigan, you are on solid legal ground if the duration of your non-compete clause doesn't exceed one year. And you are probably okay if you add a year to that. But you're walking on quicksand if your non-compete provision lasts longer than two years. 
The second point is a bit more complicated. Courts don't like to enforce a non-compete clause if its geographical scope is too wide. For example, if I'm in the packaged ice business and sell my product mostly to retai…

A BUSKLAW Newsletter Aside: Is Your Website Compliant with the European Union's GDPR?

Effective 25 May 2018, the EU's General Data Protection Regulation goes into effect. The GDPR is a big deal and quite complicated. There are 99 articles and 173 recitals defining the privacy rights of individuals and data controllers’ and data processors’ obligations. 

Are you a U.S.-baseddata controller or data processor subject to the GDPR? You are a “data controller” if you, alone or jointly with others, determine the purpose and means of “processing” personal data of EU individual customers or businesses. The threshold is that you offer goods or services to customers or businesses in the EU (including the UK, despite Brexit) and collect their personal data. But even if you don’t sell goods or services to EU customers but engage in marketing or monitoring activities involving EU individuals’ personal data, you are covered by the GDPR.

You are a data processorif you “process” personal data on behalf of a “data controller,” i.e., a data controller contracts with you to process pers…