Case Name: HENRY A. WISE, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF AMBROSE B. STANNARD, v. THE UNITED STATES
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1919-03-31
Citations: 54 Ct. Cl. 192
Docket Number: 
Parties: HENRY A. WISE, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF AMBROSE B. STANNARD, v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 54
Pages: 192–192

Head Matter:
HENRY A. WISE, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF AMBROSE B. STANNARD, v. THE UNITED STATES.
[52 C. Cls., 400 ; 249 U. S., 361.]
Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants in the court below. On appeal the judgment was affirmed, and the Supreme Court decided:
In a contract for the construction of two Government laboratory buildings, it was provided that, in case the completion of the work should be delayed beyond a period allowed, the United States, in view of the difficulty of estimating the resulting damages with exactness, and for the cost of extra inspection and rents, salaries, and other expenses that would be entailed, might deduct $200 for each day of delay, until the work should be completed, not as a penalty but as liquidated damages, computed, estimated, and agreed upon. There was such delay, as to both buildings, that the amount, thus computed exceeded $20,000: Held, that the fact that the amount specified was to be the same whether both buildings were delayed or only one was not a sufficient reason for considering it a penalty, nor was there other ground for not giving effect to the agreement as a genuine preesti-mate of loss. Sun Printing & Publishing Association v. Moore, 183 U. S., 642.
Whether a party should be relieved from a plain stipulation for liquidated damages upon the ground that a penalty was really intended will depend upon the facts of the case and not upon a conjectural situation that might have arisen under the contract.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Clarke
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court March 31, 1919.