Lake River Corp. v. Carborundum Co.: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Lost Student (talk | contribs) (Created page with "''Lake River Corp. v. Carborundum Co.'', 769 F.2d 1284 (7th Cir. 1985). '''Facts''': Plaintiff agreed to build a new bagging system for Defendant under a contract with a liquida...") |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox Case Brief | |||
|citation=769 F.2d 1284 (7th Cir. 1985) | |||
|subject=Contracts | |||
}} | |||
'''Facts''': Plaintiff agreed to build a new bagging system for Defendant under a contract with a liquidated damages clause. Defendant breached, and Plaintiff wanted damages according to the liquidated damages clause. | '''Facts''': Plaintiff agreed to build a new bagging system for Defendant under a contract with a liquidated damages clause. Defendant breached, and Plaintiff wanted damages according to the liquidated damages clause. | ||
| Line 8: | Line 10: | ||
'''Rule''': Damages = contract price - amount saved by non-shipment. | '''Rule''': Damages = contract price - amount saved by non-shipment. | ||
Revision as of 13:49, January 27, 2020
| Lake River Corp. v. Carborundum Co. | |
| Court | |
|---|---|
| Citation | 769 F.2d 1284 (7th Cir. 1985) |
| Date decided | |
Facts: Plaintiff agreed to build a new bagging system for Defendant under a contract with a liquidated damages clause. Defendant breached, and Plaintiff wanted damages according to the liquidated damages clause.
Holding: Held for Defendant.
Reasons: Although Plaintiff is entitled to damages, the liquidated damages clause is unreasonable in that it is disproportionate to the actual loss.
Rule: Damages = contract price - amount saved by non-shipment.
