Damages at Law Legal Definitiongeorge
DAMAGES, LIQUIDATED, CONTRACTS. If the parties provide for the payment of a certain amount as satisfaction determined and agreed by them for the non-performance of certain things specifically mentioned in the contract, the amount thus determined will be called lump sum damages. (n.a.) It is different from a penalty because the latter is a forfeiture from which the defaulting party can be exempted. An agreement on lump-sum damages may exist only if there is an obligation to perform certain acts the non-compliance with which would prejudice one of the parties; or to protect oneself from the performance of acts which, if committed, would also be offensive. In such cases, an estimate of the damage may be made by a jury or by prior agreement between the parties, which may foresee and determine the consequences of a breach of the obligation. 1 H. Bl. 232; and empty 2 Bos. & Pul. 335, 350-355; 2 Fr. P.
C. 431; 4 ridges, 2225; 2 T.R. 32 Civil law appears to be consistent with these principles. Inst. 3, 16, 7; Toull. Liv. 3, No. 809; Civil Code of Louis.
Article 1928, point 5; Civil Code, 1152, 1153. 2. It should be noted that, in accordance with the intention of the parties, the amount fixed is considered to be a lump sum compensation or a penalty and the use of the words „penalty“, „forfeiture“ or „lump sum damages“ is not considered decisive for whether the document as a whole reveals the following: a different intention. 2 Narrative, equation § 1318; 6 B.& C. 224; 6 Bing. 141; 6 Iredell, 186; 3 Shepl. 273; 2 Ala. 425; 8 Misso. 467. 3. Rules have been adopted to determine whether such an agreed amount is to be regarded as a penalty or as a lump sum compensation, which is listed here, taking into account, on the one hand, the cases in which it was considered a penalty and, on the other hand, in which it was considered as a lump sum damage. 4.-1.
It was treated as a penalty, 1. if the parties to the agreement have expressly declared the amount provided for as forfeiture or penalty and no other intention can be recovered from the instrument. 2 B. & P, 340, 350, 630; 1. McMullan, 106; 2 Ala. 425; 5 metc. 61; 1 H. Bl. 227; 1 campb. 78; 7 Wheat. 14; 1 Selection. 451; 4 choices.
179; 3. John. Case. 297. 2d. If it is doubtful whether it is a punishment or not, and whether some guilt or compensation below the penalty is due on the front of the instrument. 3 C. & S. 240; 6 Humph. 186.3d Where it appears that the agreement was concluded with a view to achieving another element for which the amount declared constitutes a guarantee in its entirety.
11. Fair 76; 15. Fair 488; 1 Fr. C. C. 418. 4. If the agreement contains several issues of different importance and yet that amount must be paid for the breach of even the least. 6 Bing. 141; 5 Bing. No.
C. 390; 7 Scott, 364; empty sed, 7 John. 42X 15. John 200. 5th place. If the contract is not under lock and key and the damage can be safely known and estimated. 2 B. & Al. 704; 6 B. & C. 216; 1 M.
& Malk. 41; 4 Dall. 150; 5. Cowen, 144. 5.-2. The agreed amount is considered a lump sum of damages, 1. If the damage is uncertain and cannot be determined by a satisfactory and known rule. 2 T. R. 32; 1 Alc.
& Nap. 389; 2 ridges, 2225; 10 Ves. 429; 3 M. & W. 545; 8. Fair 223; 3 C. & S. 240; 7.
Cowen 307; 4. Wend. 468. 2d If it follows from the duration of the agreement or the nature of the case that the parties have determined the amount of damage by equitable calculation and adjustment. 2 History, Eq. Juris. § 1318; 10. Fair 459; 7 John 72; 15 John 200; 1 Bing. 302; 7 cann. 291; 13. Wend. 507; 2 Green.
Ev. § 259; 11 N. H. Rep. 234; 6 Schwarzf. 206; 26. Wend. 630; 17. Wend. 447; 22. Wend.
201; 7 metc. 583; 2 Ala. 425; 2 Shepl. 250. Empty, in general, 7 Wine. From. 247; 16 Wine. From. 58; 2 W. Bl. Rep. 1190;.
Henhouse. Right. 606; 1 chit. Pr. 872; 2 Atk. 194; Finch. 117; Prec. in Ch.
102; 2 Fr. P. C. 436; Fonbl. 151, 2, Note; Note. Contr. 836; 11 N. Hamp Rep. 234. Next, let`s take a closer look at what falls under the term general damage. Some state laws provide for the award of „triple damages,“ financial compensation equal to three times the total damages.
Courts view the award of punitive damages in a different way than other types of damages surcharges. Several federal courts of appeal are engaged in an ongoing battle over the standard of review to be applied to punitive damages at the court of appeal level. In Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 532 U.S. 424, 121 pp. Ct. 1678, 149 L. Ed. 2d 674 (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court held that appellate courts must conduct a de novo review rather than apply an abuse of discretionary norms.
This decision means that federal courts of appeals have great freedom to review and reduce punitive damages based on previous U.S. Supreme Court standards. The decision is another example of the court`s decision expressing its desire to control excessive punitive damages surcharges. Compensation for damages of an economic nature may also be claimed from an injured party. A claimant may pay for loss of income resulting from harm. The measure of loss of income is the amount of money that the applicant could reasonably have earned by practising his or her profession during the period during which the applicant was unable to work due to the injury. In the case of permanent disability, this amount can be determined by calculating the income that the injured party has actually lost and multiplying it by the retirement age – with adjustments.