Skip to main content
· 2/24/1890

Clements v. Schuyl. R.

Citations

  • 132 Pa. 445
  • 19 A. 274
  • 1890 Pa. LEXIS 837

Syllabus

<p>1. When it is difficult or impossible to ascertain the damages for the breach of a contract by any fixed rule, there is a reason whjr the parties should liquidate them in advance, as stipulated damages, and why the courts should afterwards hold them to such liquidation.</p> <p>2. But, when the damages can be assessed easily and accurately, and they are fixed by the contract itself at an unconscionable sum, it is the plain duly of a court exercising equity powers to relieve against such injustice, and to treat the sum named as a penalty merely, which will do no injustice to either party.</p> <p>3. A contract to raise a dwelling, the rental value of which was about $25 per month, provided that the owner should be paid $150 per week after the extriration of the period within which the work was to be completed; in such ease, the weekly payment was to be treated merely as a penalty and not as stipulated damages.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • discerning no refusal from defendant’s mere question about propriety of speaking to lawyer before submitting to breathalyzer; question did “not evidence an attempt to debate, maneuver or negotiate the question. of submission. to the test”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Clark, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Paxson, Williams

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.