Opinion ID: 1414812
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.

Text: In our opinion, the jury could have properly found from the testimony of the two defendants relating to the circumstances surrounding the negotiation and execution of the contract that the amount of $17,500 was not a reasonable forecast of just compensation for the loss which would be suffered by plaintiff in the event of a breach by defendants because there was no genuine pre-estimate of injury, a requirement recognized by this court in Wright v. Schutt Construction, 262 Or. 619, 500 P.2d 1045 (1972), citing 5 Corbin on Contracts 345-46, § 1059 (1964), in that from that evidence it appeared that there was no honest and good faith effort to arrive at such an estimate. The jury could properly infer this even from the testimony of Mr. Maksym that he and defendants did no more than read and discuss the printed provisions, including the provision for liquidated damages, in the printed form previously prepared by plaintiff. The testimony of defendants that these provisions were not even read, much less discussed, further supports such a finding. The jury could also, in our opinion, properly find from the testimony of defendants that the listing was withdrawn the very next day; that this was done before any substantial effort or expenses were incurred by plaintiff and that, as a result, the payment to plaintiff of the sum of $17,500 would have been grossly disproportionate or without reasonable relation to plaintiff's actual damage, found by the jury to be $250. [2] This court has held that evidence that the liquidated damages would be grossly disproportionate to the actual damages may also show that the parties did not make the required bona fide effort to arrive at a reasonable forecast or pre-estimate of the expected damage or loss. [3] For these reasons, it is our opinion that there was ample evidence to support the finding by the jury, under instructions from the trial court not in issue on this appeal, that the liquidated damage provision of this contract was invalid because it did not satisfy the requirements established by this court. It follows that even if defendants should have had the burden of proof to establish that this contract provision for liquidated damages did not satisfy the established requirements for the validity of such provision, there was ample evidence to support such a finding by the jury.