Wasserman's Inc. v. Township of Middletown

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the more speculative the nature of the damages, the greater the likelihood that the amount will appear reasonable
• explaining that “[t]he decision whether a stipulated damages clause is enforceable is a question of law for the court”
• stating that \[d]isapproval of penalty clauses originated at early common law when debtors bound themselves through sealed penalty bonds for twice the amount of their actual debts\
• explaining that New Jersey courts assessing the enforceability of stipulated damages clauses have “relied on the ‘circumstances of the case and not on the words used by the parties’ ’’Xquoting Gibbs v. Cooper, 86 N.J.L. 226, 90 A. 1115, 1116 (1914)
• declining to \reach the issue of the enforceability of liquidated damage clauses in consumer contracts\
• explaining that “[t]he purpose of a stipulated damages clause is not to compel the promisor to perform, but to compensate the promisee for non-performance .... [a] clause is unreasonable if it does more than compensate plaintiffs for their approximate actual damages caused by the breach”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).