Image
Copyright & Fair-use Agreement
UNLV Special Collections provides copies of materials to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. Material not in the public domain may be used according to fair use of copyrighted materials as defined by copyright law. Please cite us.
Please note that UNLV may not own the copyright to these materials and cannot provide permission to publish or distribute materials when UNLV is not the copyright holder. The user is solely responsible for determining the copyright status of materials and obtaining permission to use material from the copyright holder and for determining whether any permissions relating to any other rights are necessary for the intended use, and for obtaining all required permissions beyond that allowed by fair use.
Read more about our reproduction and use policy.
I agree.Information
Digital ID
Permalink
Details
More Info
Rights
Digital Provenance
Publisher
Transcription
Mr #1*1* Bonnott m M Harris vs, McCoy, f Nevada, 399, ttet Supreme Ccwt of Messrs refused to enforce a provision im a bond for ite payment of a sum of money as fixed, settled, and liquidated damages for the breach of a contract to pay a lessor m m and save and keep Morris hamless from certain debts* the aoort hold that the provisions for liquidated damages was a penalty because tho liquidated damages were merely security for performance and the amount of actual damages wore readily ascertainable# la golden vs* Mttim, 3T Nevada, 305, a provision in a construction contract for liquidated damages to be paid by either party who failed to perform his part of the agreement ass held to be a penalty rather than liquidated damages* Hie amount of damages were readily ascertainable and im fact evidence was Introduced at the trial in support of actual damages. The plaintiff was seeking not only actual damages but also liquidated damages in the amount of $606*09 as provided in the agreement* The trial court disregarded actual damages and gave Judgment for fSOO.OO as liquidated dosages. The Supreme Court reversed the Judgment of the trial court on the ground tha t the tangos were capable of being known and estimated and therefore the provision for liquidated damages suet be treated as a penalty* The Court ment with the following languages supported its Judg* Where the damages are capable of being known and estimated, the mm fflxod upon as damages will be treated as a penalty, although declared to bo Intended as liquidated damages* Where the parties have a- greod oh the amount of damages, ascertained by fair calculation and adjustment, and have expressed this agreement in clear and explicit toms, tho amount so fixed will be treated as the true dasaagos and not as a penaltyj but, if the agroomont bo unconscionable, the court will not bo bound by its toms as to the rule if dwagas* * * * Whatever the nature of the contrast or tho terms la which it has been expressed, tho courts will as a rule construe the damages as a penalty, Where they arc capable of being accurately ascertained.* <13 Cyo* 03-05.)*