(Cape of Good Hope) A railway construction contract provided that in the event of a breach by the contractor he should forfeit ‘as and for liquidated damages’ certain percentages retained by the Government of the Cape of Good Hope of money payable for work done as a guarantee fund to answer for defective work and also certain security money deposited with the Government. The amount of that retained money depended on the progress of contracts other than the one in suit.
Held: The clause was a penalty. The principle to be deduced from the Clydebank case was that the criterion of whether a sum was a penalty or damages was to be found in whether the sum in question ‘can or cannot be regarded as a ‘genuine pre-estimate of the creditor’s probable or possible interest in the due performance of the principal obligation.’ The question of whether a sum stipulated is penalty or liquidated damages is a question of construction to be decided upon the terms and inherent circumstances of each particular contract, judged of as at the time of the making of the contract, not as at the time of breach.
The Clydebank case was decided according to ‘the rules of a system of law where contract law was based directly on the civil law and no complications in the matter of pleading had ever been introduced by the separation of common law and equity.’
Lord Dunedin formulated the test: ‘The general principle to be deduced from that judgment seems to be this, that the criterion of whether a sum – be it called penalty or damages – is truly liquidated damages, and as such not to be interfered with by the Court, or is truly a penalty which covers the damage if proved, but does not assess it, is to be found in whether the sum stipulated for can or can not be regarded as a ‘genuine pre-estimate of the creditor’s probable or possible interest in the due performance of the principal obligation’. The indicia of this question will vary according to circumstances. Enormous disparity of the sum to any conceivable loss will point one way, while the fact of the payment being in terms proportionate to the loss will point the other. But the circumstances must be taken as a whole, and must be viewed as at the time the bargain was made.’
Judges:
Lord Dunedin
Citations:
, (1906) 22 TLR 589, [1906] UKPC 35, [1906] AC 368
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Commonwealth
Citing:
Cited – Commissioner of Public Works v Hills PC 24-May-1906
(Cape of Good Hope) A railway construction contract provided that in the event of a breach by the contractor he should forfeit ‘as and for liquidated damages’ certain percentages retained by the Government of the Cape of Good Hope of money payable . .
Explained – Clydebank Engineering Co v Castaneda HL 19-Nov-1904
The House considered a contract for the construction by a Scottish shipbuilder of four torpedo boats for the Spanish government. The contract provided that: ‘The penalty for late delivery shall be at the rate of andpound;500 per week for each . .
Cited by:
Cited – Workers Trust and Merchant Bank Ltd v Dojap Investments Ltd PC 22-Feb-1993
(Jamaica) The purchaser at an auction had been obliged under the terms of the auction contract to pay a deposit of 25%. He failed to complete, and the vendor took the deposit by way of forfeit. The standard deposit payable would be 10%. The Court of . .
Cited – Commissioner of Public Works v Hills PC 24-May-1906
(Cape of Good Hope) A railway construction contract provided that in the event of a breach by the contractor he should forfeit ‘as and for liquidated damages’ certain percentages retained by the Government of the Cape of Good Hope of money payable . .
Cited – Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Ltd v New Garage and Motor Company Ltd HL 1-Jul-1914
The appellants contracted through an agent to supply tyres. The respondents contracted not to do certain things, and in case of breach concluded: ‘We agree to pay to the Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company, Ltd. the sum of 5 l. for each and every tyre, . .
Cited – Cavendish Square Holding Bv v Talal El Makdessi; ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis SC 4-Nov-2015
The court reconsidered the law relating to penalty clauses in contracts. The first appeal, Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi, raised the issue in relation to two clauses in a substantial commercial contract. The second appeal, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187690