City of Kinston v. Suddreth, 356
Decision Date | 02 March 1966 |
Docket Number | No. 356,356 |
Citation | 266 N.C. 618,146 S.E.2d 660 |
Parties | CITY OF KINSTON, a municipal corporation v. H. C. SUDDRETH. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
George B. Greene, Kinston, for plaintiff appellant.
C. E. Gerrans, Kinston, for defendant appellee.
Defendant demurred on the ground that, in their contract, the parties had expressly fixed and limited the maximum amount of damages which the City could recover from him in the event he failed to comply with his bid; that he had the alternative to perform or to forfeit; and that the City, therefore, can recover no more than the agreed amount which the parties had denominated 'liquidated damages.' Plaintiff's position is that the contract provision was not for liquidated damages, but for a penalty which the court will not enforce, thus permitting plaintiff to recover its actual damages.
At the outset, it is noted:
McCormick, Damages § 153 (1935).
The plea that a sum stipulated to be liquidated damages is in reality a penalty is ordinarily a defensive one--a shield to protect a defendant from an absurd or oppressive claim which is entirely disproportionate to the actual damage he has caused. We apprehend that it is rare indeed that a party--as here--attempts to use the plea offensively to collect damages in excess of the stipulated figure.
McCormick, Damages § 146 (1935).
Liquidated damages may be collected; a penalty will not be enforced. 22 Am.Jur.2d, Damages § 212 (1965).
It is not necessary for us to decide whether the sum, which the parties here have so designated, is actually liquidated damages. Conceding it to be a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Knutton v. Cofield, 194
...in the contract as liquidated damages. 'Liquidated damages may be collected; a penalty will not be enforced.' City of Kinston v. Suddreth, 266 N.C. 618, 620, 146 S.E.2d 660, 662. 'The phrase 'liquidated damages' means a sum stipulated and agreed upon by the parties, at the time of entering ......
-
Samost v. Duke Univ.
...97 N.C.App. 92, 95, 387 S.E.2d 72, 74,disc. review denied,327 N.C. 145, 394 S.E.2d 186 (1990); see also Kinston v. Suddreth, 266 N.C. 618, 621, 146 S.E.2d 660, 662–63 (1966) (discussing a party's ability to limit damages based on a contract provision). In construing a contract, the courts a......
-
Azalea Garden Bd. & Care Inc v. Vanhoy
...id. (citation omitted), plaintiff's damages are limited to $12,500.00. As noted by our Supreme Court in Kinston v. Suddreth, 266 N.C. 618, 621, 146 S.E.2d 660, 663 (1966), "[w]hatever [plaintiff] may have intended, that was the effect of the contract which it accepted." As part of its secon......
-
Azalea Garden Board & Care, Inc. v. Vanhoy
...breach[, ]" id. (citation omitted), plaintiff's damages are limited to $12, 500.00. As noted by our Supreme Court in Kinston v. Suddreth, 266 N.C. 618, 621, 146 S.E.2d 660, 663 (1966), "[w]hatever [plaintiff] may have intended, that was the effect of the contract which it As part of its sec......