Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2008

Abstract

A casebook favorite for exploring the liquid dated damage/penalty clause distinction is Lake River Corp. v. Carborundum Co. in which Judge Posner found a minimum quantity clause to be an unenforceable penalty clause. In this paper I argue that the case was framed improperly. Had the litigators recognized that the contract afforded one party an option, the result should have been different. The contract was for the provision of a service – setting aside capacity – which was valuable to the buyer and costly for the seller to provide. The primary purpose of the minimum quantity clause was the pricing of that service. The case indirectly raised a significant damages issue: if there is an anticipatory repudiation of a contract that is take-or-pay or has a stipulated damage clause, should the promisee's ability to mitigate be taken into account when reckoning damages?

Disciplines

Contracts | Law | Law and Economics

Center/Program

Center for Law and Economic Studies

Center/Program

Center for Contract and Economic Organization

Share

COinS