upr000067 182

las Vegas, Nevada January 8tfe* 1953* Mr*i£*3»* Bennett s ( ee - Mr* A*&. Stoddard Mr* 1 M L house Mr* Iftu* Beiishardt Mr* W*H# HuXslsor V MMrr** 1R*.LM*. ASduatmtsoenr * "X^Hr* W.H. Johnson ) With reference to your lot tor- of oeeesafeer 80th* 1088* to Mr* W*E* house* witit enclosures, I m of the opinion that the proposed provision for liquidated dosages Is sat­isfactory m o o r Nevada law* and 1 believe all elements necessary to have such a provision sustained have boon an« tloipatod by you* There is no Nevada Statute slmiliar to Sooilons 18*70 ill 1871 of the California Civil Code prohibiting provis­ions for liquidated daatages except in eases where it would be impracticable or @xire«ely difficult to fix the actual damges* I have been able to find but two eases in Nevada involving the enforeibility of contracts containing previs­ions for liquids tod damages. However* I m satisfied fra® the expressions contained in those oases that our courts will undoubtedly follow the overwhelming weight of authority which is ably stated in Section 333 of tho hestatewent of tho Lav of eontracts as follows? * (1) An agreement, made in advance of breach, fixing- the damages therefor, is not enforceable as a contract and does net affect the damages recover­able for #ie breach* unless s(oa)n ablteh of oarmeocuanstt soof fijuxsetd ciosm pae nrseaa­­tion for tho harm that is caused by the broach* and (h) the harm that is caused by tho breach 1$ one that is incapable or vtieorny* *difficult of aeo urate estima­