Opinion ID: 874110
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The district court erred in its application of the burden of proof.

Text: The party asserting that a liquidated damages clause is unenforceable bears the burden of proving that the liquidated damages are not reasonably related to actual damages, and/or are exorbitant and unconscionable. Howard v. Bar Bell Land & Cattle Co., 81 Idaho 189, 197, 340 P.2d 103, 107 (1959). In the present case, the district court found that Schroeder did not submit evidence of injury specifically related to Partin's breach of the Performance Agreement, and therefore this jury did not have evidence that would permit them to make the valuation required by the jury instruction. The district court reasoned that although Partin bore the burden of proof, Partin did not bear the burden of production. In so holding, the district court erred. A party's `[b]urden of proof' encompasses both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion. Cowan v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Fremont Cnty., 143 Idaho 501, 515, 148 P.3d 1247, 1261 (2006). Since Partin bore the burden of production, Partin would have to bear the consequences if the record did not reflect sufficient evidence for the jury to assess the validity of the Performance Agreement. However, in this case, the record contains substantial, competent evidence supporting the jury's determination that the Performance Agreement was enforceable.