Court Opinion

ID: 9607374
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:58:01.137741+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:38.413091
License: Public Domain

McDONOUGH, Justice
(dissenting in part and concurring in part).
I am unable to agree with the conclusion of the majority that the plaintiff An-dreasen elected to accept $50 earnest money deposit as liquidated damages. The trial court specifically found that he did not. This finding is amply supported by the evidence. At the time defendant stated to the plaintiff that he would not go through with the contract he offered to forfeit the $50. He was at that time specifically told by the plaintiff that the plaintiff would not accept it and that he would claim some 40 times that much as damages should the defendant repudiate the contract. In view of this testimony and the finding of the trial court, I am unable to see how this court arrived at its conclusion that Andreasen did in fact accept the $50 simply because he did not at that time offer to return the $50 although claiming damages greatly in excess of that amount.
*378The opinion of the court dwells at length about the “fine print” of the contract. This may, of course, be of importance where it bears upon the issue of concealment, deception or fraud, but the defendants themselves made no point of the “fine print” either in the court below or before this court on appeal. No contention is anywhere made that they did not fully understand the provisions of the contract.
I agree that the trial judge was in error in his view that where damages stipulated in the contract appear to be inadequate, the court has the prerogative of adding thereto. The parties are at liberty to bind themselves by contract. It is only where the stipulation as to damages results in such gross inequality as to shock the conscience that a court of equity will refuse to enforce it. Courts are extremely reluctant to interfere with the obligations of contracts. See Carlson v. Hamilton, 8 Utah 272, 332 P.2d 989, and cases there cited.
I am in accord with the observations made concerning damages and therefore believe that the case should be remanded for a new trial for the purpose of correctly assessing damages consistent with the views herein above expressed.
WADE, J., having disqualified himself did not participate herein.