upr000089 57

JAN 9 1953 ;____ b ; c ?r . JAM r$fll 1953 Las Vegas, Nevada January 6th, 1953* Mr«E,E, Bennett: ( cc Mr, A*E, Stoddard Mr, W*R* Rouse Mr, Wm* Reinhardt Mr, W,H, Hulsizer Mr, R,M, Sutton Mr, R,L, Adamson Mr, W,H, Johnson ) With reference to your letter of December 29th, 1952, to Mr, W,R, Rouse, with enclosures, I am of the opinion that the proposed provision for liquidated damages is sat­isfactory under Nevada law, and I believe all elements necessary to have such a provision sustained have been an­ticipated by you. There is no Nevada Statute similiar to Sections 1670 and 1671 of the California Civil Code prohibiting provis­ions for liquidated damages except in cases where it would be impracticable or extremely difficult to fix the actual damages, I have been able to find but two cases in Nevada involving the enforcibility of contracts containing provis­ions for liquidated damages. However, I am satisfied from the expressions contained in those cases that our courts will undoubtedly follow the overwhelming weight of authority, which is ably stated in Section 339 of the Restatement of the Law of contracts as follows: ”?(1) An agreement, made in advance of breach, fixing the damages therefor, is not enforceable as a contract and does not affect the damages recover­able for the breach, unless (a) the amount so fixed is a rea­sonable forecast of just compensa­tion for the harm that is caused by the breach, and (b) the harm that is caused by the breach is one that is incapable or very difficult of acc urate estima­tion,"