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 …

A BUSKLAW Newsletter Aside: Links to My Michigan Bar Journal Plain-Language Articles

Since my retirement from in-house corporate law in 2014, I've written or co-written several articles about using plain-language in contracts for the Michigan Bar Journal. And a new article has recently appeared in the October 2017 issue. But those articles haven't been a lone endeavor in any sense; I've had several plain-language experts give me their input along the way:
Plain English Scholar and WMU-Cooley Law School Distinguished Professor Emeritus Joe Kimblewho invited me to write for the Journal to begin with and has since freely given me editorial advice that not only benefits the particular article du jour but also helps my legal writing generally. And a hat tip to Journal Editor Linda Novak who has put, editorially-speaking, the "frosting on the cake" before publication of these articles. Michael Braem, J.D., Contract Manager of the Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, who has co-authored some of the articles with me. Michael has also becom…

The BUSKLAW November Newsletter: Dead Turkeys and Deader Tort Damages

November is the month of Thanksgiving. And Thanksgiving for most folks means time with family and friends (better yet, family who are friends), an appropriate but modestly-priced wine, and a turkey. Turkeys should live their brief sojourn on this earth in relative peace before winding up on our table. But that was not to be for the poor fowls in the recent Kent County (MI) Circuit Court case of White Acres, LLC et al v. Shur Green Farms, LLC et al

The case involves a plethora of parties (hence the "et al"), all of whom were in the distribution chain of a biofuel called Lascadoil. Unlike its parent product, Lasalocid, Lascadoil is not an appropriate turkey-feed additive. (Does anything with "oil" in its name sound fit for human or animal consumption?) So when a bunch of turkeys died after eating feed tainted with Lascadoil, the lawsuits started flying; each party was sued by its downstream buyer who in turn sued its upstream seller. And numerous insurance companies…