Court Opinion

ID: 9617123
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:52:21.231806+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:41.762735
License: Public Domain

Nichols, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent from the majority opinion upholding the liquidated damages clause because the majority ignores and fails to apply the fundamental rule of construction which requires that an ambiguous provision of a contract be construed against the party who wrote the contract. McBurney v. McIntyre, 38 Ga. 261 (1868). "Here the defendant State Highway Department of Georgia as a scrivener of the contract must receive an unfavorable construction with regard to all ambiguities.” Southeastern Hwy. Contracting Co. v. State Hwy. Dept., 130 Ga. App. 160, 165 (202 SE2d 520) (1973).
The liquidated damages clause in issue recites, in pertinent part, that "the liquidated damages referred to herein are intended to be and are cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy now or hereafter enforceable at law, in equity, by statute, or under the contract.” Cumulative of what? Cumulative of all damages including actual damages for breach of the covenants of the contract as to time? Or, instead, cumulative of all damages except actual damages for breach of the covenants of the contract as to time? The majority opts for the latter view, thereby construing the clause in accordance with the wishes of the department and against the views of the contractor. The majority reaches that conclusion while citing cases holding that when the parties’ intention as to liquidated damages is "clearly ascertainable from the writing,” their clearly expressed intention will be given effect.
Where, may I ask, is the intention of the parties regarding the meaning of the word "cumulative” clearly stated in their contract? It is not in the contract clause quoted above. It is not in any other language excerpted from the contract and set forth in the majority opinion. The majority reaches its conclusion, I submit, not from any clearly expressed intent of the parties but by *536construing the above-quoted, ambiguous provision in favor of its author, a rule of construction heretofore unknown to the laws of this state.
I am authorized to state that Justice Hill joins in this dissent.