A theory of efficient penalty: Eliminating the law of liquidated damages

American Business Law Journal

Volumn 38, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 633-733

  DiMatteo, Larry A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035622933     PISSN: 00027766     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-1714.2001.tb00905.x     Document Type: Article

References (3)

1. Brecher v. Laikin, 430 F. Supp. 103, 106 (1977).
2. See,e.g., H.Lloyd, Penalties and Forfeitures, 29 HARV. L. REV. 117(1915). Plucknett cites a 1309 case in which relief is granted against a penalty. The court reasoned that "this is not properly a debt but a penalty; and with what equity can you demand this penalty?"
3. THEODORE F.T. PLUCKNETT, A CONCISE HISTORY OF THE COMMON LAW 677 (5th ed. 1956). More recently, a court stated that "this can be nothing more than a penalty which equity will always relieve against." Justine Realty Co. v. Am. Nat'l Can Co., 976 F.2d 385, 389 (8th Cir.1992) (emphasis added).