Penal damages

Penal damages are liquidated damages which exceed reasonable compensatory damages, making them invalid under common law. While liquidated damage clauses set a pre-agreed value on the expected loss to one party if the other party were to breach the contract, penal damages go further and seek to penalise the breaching party beyond the reasonable losses from the breach.[1] Many clauses which are found to be penal are expressed as liquidated damages clauses but have been seen by courts as excessive and thus invalid.[2]

Not to be confused with Penal harm.
Contract law
Part of the common law series
Contract formation
Defenses against formation
Contract interpretation
Excuses for non-performance
Rights of third parties
Breach of contract
Remedies
Quasi-contractual obligations
Related areas of law
Other common law areas

The judicial approach to penal damages is conceptually important as it is one of the few examples of judicial paternalism in contract law. Even if two parties genuinely and without coercion wish to consent to a contract which includes a penal clause, they are unable to. So, for example, a person wishing to give up smoking cannot contract with a third party to be fined $100 each time they smoke as this figure does not represent the expectation loss of the contract.

A wholesale review of the English law rule against penalty clauses (as opposed to penal damages) was conducted by the UK Supreme Court in the 2015 judgment in Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi[3]

As distinguished from other types of damages

Penal damages are to be distinguished from punitive damages, which are awarded in certain types of tort actions for actions which caused harm to the plaintiff. Penal damages are also different from treble damages, which are generally set by statute for certain violations of competition law and related laws.

See also

References
  1. Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd v Plessnig [1989] HCA 7, (1989) 166 CLR 131, High Court (Australia).
  2. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd [1914] UKHL 1 at [4], House of Lords (UK).
  3. Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi [2015] UKSC 67, Supreme Court (UK), a case joined with ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis for the purposes of the Supreme Court judgment.


This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.