Opinion ID: 741530
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Differing damages as an indication of a penalty

Text: 20 Wien has not established that the contractual differentiation between the types of damages is unreasonable. In fact, the differentiation would tend to indicate the reasonableness of the section, by making the amount of damages contingent on the nature of the breach. See, e.g., Smith v. Royal Mfg. Co., 8 Cal.Rptr. 417 (Cal.Dist.Ct.App.1960) (holding that a liquidated damages clause that provided for the payment of the same amount of damages, regardless of whether the buyer defaulted after the purchase of one or one hundred of seller's products, was a penalty). 21 Wien relies once again on the testimony of Mr. Doust as support for its premise that there is at least a triable issue of fact as to the reasonableness of the sections. Wien's evidence on this point is not the significant probative evidence required by Anderson. 477 U.S. at 249. Doust's testimony is not enough to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the liquidated damages clause.