Community Development Service, Inc. v. Replacement Parts Manufacturing, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• jury findings and evidence supported claim that earnest money provision operated as penalty
• court held liquidated damages provision in contract to purchase lots unenforceable penalty because amount was same for trivial and material breaches
• same damages for “any default,” such as failure to pay taxes and interest or failure to keep trash off the property
• jury findings and evidence supported claim that earnest money provision operated as penalty
• jury findings and evidence supported claim that earnest money provision operated as penalty
• in contract to purchase lot, liquidated damages provision was unenforceable penalty, even though parties supposedly intended the provision to estimate their damages in event of breach, because damages were same for material and trivial breaches and thus unreasonable

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).