Opinion ID: 741530
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Wien's lack of independent counsel

Text: 22 It is true that two of the factors to be considered when determining the reasonableness of the clauses are whether the parties were represented by counsel, and the relative equality of bargaining power of the parties. Law Revision Committee Comment foll. Cal.Civ.Code § 1671. However, Wien does not seem inexperienced in matters of aircraft purchasing. In December of 1990, Wien entered into another contract to purchase an aircraft for millions of dollars. This other contract also contained a liquidated damages clause. It is difficult to accept Wien's apparent claims of unsophistication and unequal bargaining power in this transaction when it appears that Wien has entered into this type of contract in the past. 4 23 While the presence of independent counsel is certainly helpful and definitely advisable when entering into a contract of this magnitude, the lack thereof does not render provisions of the contract unreasonable. Wien has not introduced specific facts to show that any of the other Law Revision Commission factors would demonstrate the unreasonableness of the clauses. In fact, the plain language of the contract tends to indicate that the clauses were not unreasonable. The contract expressly states that the liquidated damages clauses have been deemed fair and equitable by counsel for the respective parties. The contract also expressly states that section 25.3 has been deemed the best approximation of the damages that USL might incur, and that what the exact amount of damages would be could not be accurately determined. 24 For the aforementioned reasons, we hold that Wien has not met its burden of presenting significant probative evidence that the liquidated damages provisions are unreasonable.