Court Opinion

ID: 9661851
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:52:57.220802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:34.489634
License: Public Domain

Marian F. Penix, Judge, dissenting. It is my belief the trial court altered the terms of the contract by limiting the award of liquidated damages to a date before full completion of the terms of the contract. This is error. The court found the liquidated damages provision to be a valid one. This being the case the court’s arbitrary finding that the liquidated damages of $100 per day ceased to accumulate December 7,1977, was nothing less than an alteration of the contract. These parties bargained and knowingly entered into an agreement, the terms of which were clear and unambiguous. One of the bargained-for terms was that the work would be fully completed within 90 days. Testimony indicates the need for this 90 day term was to insure the work would be completed before the winter rains. Liquidated damages are enforceable when they are provided for to compensate for damages which will be difficult to ascertain if the contract is breached, and thereby prevent a controversy between the parties as to the amount. This liquidated damages clause was triggered not by lack of substantial performance, but rather by the failure to complete the work within the agreed upon time frame. The doctrine of substantial completion is applicable in situations where the contractor fails too finish the job. It is used as a means to determine damages. In this case the contract was fully performed, but in an untimely manner. Performance was completed but not by the agreed upon date. It was not completed within 90 days. The parties had provided the measure to be used to determine compensation due the appellant in the event the appellee failed to. perform within 90 days. I see no reason for the court to alter the terms of a contract which were agreed to by knowledgeable, experienced business persons. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.