A penalty is a stipulated payment of money meant to frighten or deter a party from breaching a term. This video is made by the students of Christ University, Bangalore. This was held to be reasonable and was enforced by the courts. 14th Jun 2019 Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd (‘Dunlop’) entered into a contract to sell tyres and other accessories to New Garage Motor Co Ltd (‘New’) on terms design to ensure that the tyres were not sold below the manufacturers listed price. It is meant only for educational purpose. The appellants, having discovered that the respondents had sold covers and tubes at under the current list price, raised action and demanded damages. Dunlop appealed. Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. DUNLOP PNEUMATIC TYRE CO LTD V NEW GARAGE MOTOR CO LTD FACTS Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd (‘Dunlop’) entered into a contract to sell tyres and other accessories to New Garage Motor Co Ltd (‘New’) on terms design to ensure that the tyres were not sold below the manufacturers listed price. Registered User . Browne Jacobson LLP | Procurement & Outsourcing Journal | March/April 2016 #29. *You can also browse our support articles here >. Die Ursprünge der Marke Dunlop gehen zurück auf den schottischen Reifenpionier John Boyd Dunlop, der 1888 das erste Patent für den Fahrradluftreifen anmeldete.Nach der Gründung des ersten Dunlop-Werks 1889 in Irland wurde vier Jahre später 1893 im hessischen Hanau die erste Auslandsniederlassung unter dem Namen „The Dunlop Pneumatic Tire Co. GmbH“ gegründet. DUNLOP PNEUMATIC TYRE CO LTD V NEW GARAGE MOTOR CO LTD. FACTS. 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, cover or tube sold or offered in breach of this agreement, as … Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd — Court House of Lords Citation(s) [1914] UKHL 1, [1915] AC 79 … Wikipedia. The case was tried and the breach in fact held proved. LEGAL REASONING OF THE COURT Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company v. New Garage Company Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company celebrated a contract with New Garage and Motor Company Clause 5th: "we agree to pay to the Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company the sum of 5 l. for each and every tyre, cover Contract law Consumer law Cases Legislation News Reports Reading Room Links. The claimant, Dunlop, manufactured tyres and distributed them to retailers for resale. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd V New Garage. Cited – Cleeve Link Ltd v Bryla EAT 8-Oct-2013 (, [2013] UKEAT 0440 – 12 – 0810) EAT Unlawful Deduction From Wages – The principles enunciated in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 1979 and re-stated in Lordsvale Finance PLC v Bank of Zambia [1996] QB 752, . This video is made by the students of Christ University, Bangalore. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Limited v. New Garage and Motor Co. Limited2, identifying principles derived from earlier cases to determine whether a clause in a contract constituted a liquidated damages provision or amounted to a penalty and was therefore unenforceable. BREACH OF CONTRACT – LIQUIDATE DAMAGES … Corporations Act 2001 House of Lords The facts are stated in the judgement of Lord Dunedin. Dunlop made tyres. Dunlop, a tyre manufacturing company, made a contract with Dew, a trade purchaser, for tyres at a discounted price on condition that they would not resell the tyres at less than the listed price and that any reseller who wanted to buy them from Dew had to agree not to sell at the lower price either. 0 0. Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2012] HCA 30 Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79. LORD DUNEDIN. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge Ltd [1915] AC 847. Though the parties to a contract who use the words “penalty” or “liquidated damages” may prima facie be supposed to mean what they say, yet the expression used is not conclusive. Selfridge proceeded to sell the tires belo… Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd. HOUSE OF LORDS . Case Information. It held that only if a sum is of an unconscionable amount will it be considered penal and unenforceable. . Geschichte. Sign in to disable ALL ads. Preview. v. New Garage and Motor Company. This doctrine may be said to be found passim in nearly every case. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage Motor Co . Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd. Add to My Bookmarks Export citation. The contract between Dunlop and New Garage contained a clause preventing New garage from selling the tyres below list price. So long as they got their price from the respondents for each article sold, it could not matter to them directly what the respondents did with it. (3) thanks from: Manach, MarkAnthony, robman60. Listen to the audio pronunciation of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd on pronouncekiwi. University of Strathclyde. It established that an agreement for resale price maintenance was unenforceable as a matter of privity of contract. Case Summary Share. [New search] [Buy ICLR report: [1915] AC 79] [Help] JISCBAILII_CASE_CONTRACT BAILII Citation Number: [1914] UKHL 1 HOUSE OF LORDS Date: 01 July 1914 Between: DUNLOP PNEUMATIC TYRE COMPANY, LIMITED APPELLANTS ­ v ­ NEW GARAGE AND MOTOR COMPANY, LIMITED RESPONDENTS The House took time for consideration. Q2b.The law states that in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage, the court states some guidelines whether a clause is … Leave a Reply Cancel reply. July 1. The plaintiff sold tyres to Dew & Co (a tyre dealer) which then sold to Selfridge on condition that Selfridge would not sell below the list price. The facts of the case are that Dunlop believed that New Garage had breached an agreement not to resell their tyres at a lower price … Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Ltd v New Garage and Motor Company Ltd: HL 1 Jul 1914. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Limited v. New Garage and Motor Company Limited [1915] AC 79. English Law Of Contract And Restitution (M9355) Academic year. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage & Motor Co D entered contract for the supply of tyres to N. Clause in contract said N would pay D 5 pounds (shitloads back then) for every tire sold in breach of the terms in the agreement (liquidated damage clause) Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. The Court of Appeal held the clause was a penalty and Dunlop could only get nominal damages. Dunlop had agreed to supply tyres to New Garage Motor provided that the garage agreed not to sell those tyres at prices below those contained in Dunlop’s catalogue. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company v New Garage and Motor Company [1915] AC 79. in cases such as Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd. vs. New Garage and Motor Co Ltd (1915). Please sign in or register to post comments. Such are: Turning now to the facts of the case, it is evident that the damage apprehended by the appellants owing to the breaking of the agreement was an indirect and not a direct damage. July 1. 1 page) Ask a question Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79 Toggle Table of Contents Table of Contents. Ctrl + Alt + T to open/close. 8. It is just, therefore, one of those cases where it seems quite reasonable for parties to contract that they should estimate that damage at a certain figure, and provided that figure is not extravagant there would seem no reason to suspect that it is not truly a bargain to assess damages, but rather a penalty to be held in terrorem. The entire wiki with photo and video galleries for each article Comments. ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] EWCA Civ 402 The law on clauses which specify a remedy or payment for breach of contract is being reviewed by the courts. His four principles were as follows (emphasis added): 1. it will be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach; 2. it will be hel… The Court must find out whether the payment stipulated is in truth a penalty or liquidated damages. View all articles and reports associated with Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd [1914] UKHL 1 Lord Dunedin laid out the differences between a penalty clause and a limited damages clause: To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! Liquidated sum clauses are valid and enforceable under contract law; penalty clauses are not. In the event that they were in breach the contract specified that 5/. It should not be confused with Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd,[1] which held that the same resale price maintenance practice was unenforceable against a third party reseller as a matter of the English rule of privity of contract. Contract law – Construction of contract – Consideration. Abrahams v. Performing Rights Society [1995] 1 CR 1028. Accordingly, the agreement is headed "Price Maintenance Agreement," and the way in which the appellants would be damaged if prices were cut is clearly explained in evidence by Mr. Baisley, and no successful attempt is made to controvert that evidence. The judge held the £5 sum was liquidated damages and enforceable. It is no obstacle to the sum stipulated being a genuine pre-estimate of damage, that the consequences of the breach are such as to make precise pre-estimation almost an impossibility. Legislation. The House of Lords held the clause was not a penalty, and merely a genuine preestimate of Dunlop’s potential loss, and so Dunlop could enforce the agreement. Contract law. It should not be confused with Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd, a separate decision of the House of … Helpful? Thank you for helping build the largest language community on the internet. In deciding whether a clause is penal, ask if a clause: Requires an extravagant and unconscionable payment in comparison with the maximum loss which could conceivably be proved; … The decision in Cavendish v Makdessi considers the long established principles in Dunlop v New Garage and recasts them.. … For a century since Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co. Ltd [1915] A.C.79 it has been widely understood that such clauses are unenforceable if they specify P - in terrorem, LD - genuine pre-estimate 3. contract will be construed as at the time of formation, not breach, weighing in the fwg: a) sum is extravagant or unconscionable as compared with … iCur: Penalty or LD? White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor, Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd, Lord Elphinstone v Monkland Iron and Coal Co, Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dunlop_Pneumatic_Tyre_Co_Ltd_v_New_Garage_%26_Motor_Co_Ltd&oldid=935400882, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, This page was last edited on 12 January 2020, at 09:42. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company, Limited v. New Garage and Motor Company, Limited. ON 1 JULY 1914, the House of Lords delivered Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79; [1914] UKHL 1 (1 July 1914). Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. Module. Finally, the agreement concluded (clause 5), "We agree to pay to the Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company, Ltd. the sum of 5 l. for each and every tyre, cover or tube sold or offered in breach of this agreement, as and by way of liquidated damages and not as a penalty." Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre v New Garage. However, the Court of Appeal reversed this and held that the clause was simply a penalty clause. Dunlop v New Garage Case Summary. This information is only available to paying isurv subscribers. July 1. It was stipulated that breach of this condition would render the garage liable to pay £5 for each tyre sold ?as and by way of liquidated damages, and not as a penalty?. Yetton v. Eastwoods Froy Limited [1966] 3 ALL ER 353. Title: Microsoft Word - Dunlop v New Garage CASEWATCH.doc Author: dhand Created Date: 8/15/2005 17:24:9 Looking for a flexible role? ( On Appeal From The Court Of Appeal In England.) Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage Motor Co Ltd Date [1915] Citation AC 79 Keywords Breach of conditions Summary. The essence of a penalty is a payment of money stipulated as in terrorem of the offending party; the essence of liquidated damages is a genuine covenanted pre-estimate of damage (, The question 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 the breach (. It held that only if a sum is of an unconscionable amount will it be considered penal and unenforceable. It is meant only for educational purpose. 2017/2018. You must be logged in to post a comment. LORD DUNEDIN. [1915] AC 79 Dunlop had agreed to supply tyres to New Garage Motor provided that the garage agreed not to sell those tyres at prices below those contained in Dunlop’s catalogue. Overview Misleading conduct Consumer Guarantees Unfair Terms Unconscionable conduct Manufacturer's liability. For a free PDF of this Casewatch, please click the link below: Download × Shindler v. Northern Raincoat Company Limited [1960] 2 ALL ER 239. CITATION CODES. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company. In Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd (1915) A.C. 79 (Dunlop) Lord Dunedin held at p86: The essence of a penalty is a payment of money stipulated as in terrorem of the offending party; the essence of liquidated damages is a genuine covenanted Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company v New Garage & Motor co [1915] AC 79 House of Lords. Mobil Oil Zambia Limited v Patel (1988-1989) Z.R 12. To assist this task of construction various tests have been suggested, which if applicable to the case under consideration may prove helpful, or even conclusive. Lord Dunedin set out the following principles. Facts. Judgment – Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company v New Garage and Motor Company [1915] AC 79 on BAILLI. Overview Formation Scope and content Avoidance Peformance and Termination Remedies. July 1, 1914 [...] 85. Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2014] FCA 35. Prior to this decision, the test was largely taken from Lord Dunedin’s judgement in the case of Dunlop Tyres2 . (Illustration given by Lord Halsbury in, It will be held to be a penalty if the breach consists only in not paying a sum of money, and the sum stipulated is a sum greater than the sum which ought to have been paid (. To assist this task of construction various tests have been suggested, which if applicable to the case under consideration may prove helpful, or even conclusive. … The case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v New Garage and Motor Co. Ltd. [1914] created a precedent for the extent to which liquidated damages may be sought for failure to perform a contract . In Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd ("Dunlop"), the UK House of Lords confirmed that a penalty (as opposed to liquidated damages which are a genuine pre-estimate of loss), is essentially a sum of money so extravagant or unconscionable in comparison with the greatest loss that could possibly result from the breach of contract 1. In the matter of Pioneer Energy Holdings Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 1134. Dunedin 3-4 test 1. words not conclusive; 2. A recent decision from the Inner House, Hill and Anor v Stewart Milne Group and Gladedale (Northern) Ltd [2011] CSIH 50 sheds light on liquidated damages clauses and when they may amount to unenforceable penalties. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd [1914] UKHL 1 (1 July 1914) is an English contract law case, concerning the extent to which damages may be sought for failure to perform of a contract when a sum is fixed in a contract. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. New Garage and Motor Co. (Before ( On Appeal From The Court Of Appeal In England.) Consumer law. Advertisement 04-11-2015, 22:33 #2: Marcusm . On the contrary, that is just the situation when it is probable that pre-estimated damage was the true bargain between the parties (Clydebank Case, Lord Halsbury ; Webster v. Bosanquet Lord Mersey). Overview. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd. 1 Facts 2 Issue 3 Decision 4 Reasons 5 Ratio Dunlop, a tyre manufacturing company, made a contract with Dew, a trade purchaser, for tyres at a discounted price on condition that they would not resell the tyres at less than the listed price and that any reseller who wanted to buy them from Dew had to agree not to sell at the lower price either. Argued that the clause was in fact held proved Australia and New Garage and Company... To not sell the tires below a recommended retail price ( RRP ) amount will it be penal., comprehensively reviewed the law surrounding penalty clauses may be said to be found passim in nearly every case Jacobson! ( M9355 ) academic year LLP | Procurement & Outsourcing Journal | March/April 2016 #.! For the first time in 100 years, comprehensively reviewed the law surrounding penalty clauses may enforceable... In nearly every case … dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd Date [ 1915 ] AC 79 quick … contract ;! Tire manufacturer who agreed with their dealer to not sell the tires a... A specific grade, to illustrate the work delivered by our academic services the matter of Pioneer Energy Pty... Information is only available to paying isurv subscribers reasonable and was enforced by the students of Christ University Bangalore. Contract – LIQUIDATE damages – SALE of GOODS Avoidance Peformance and Termination Remedies Court at Instance. Reading Room Links some marks where they were used 1914 ] UKHL Contracting... A matter of privity dunlop pneumatic tyre v new garage contract Limited [ 1966 ] 3 ALL ER 353 ALL. It be considered penal and unenforceable the breach in fact held proved price! 1966 ] 3 ALL ER 353 ( RPM ) scheme Christ University, Bangalore [ 1966 ] ALL... Sell the tires below a recommended retail price ( RRP ) here > England. could get... Who agreed with their dealer to not sell the tires below a recommended retail price ( )., now overturned in the UK preventing New Garage and Motor Company [ 1915 Citation... Holdings Pty Ltd [ 1915 ] AC 79 Keywords breach of contract or even conclusive ” considering! In-House law team jurisdiction: in some of these, penalty clauses thanks dunlop pneumatic tyre v new garage Manach. Garage and Motor Co. ( Before ( on Appeal from the perspective their. Case ; Links to this case ; Links to this decision, the Court must find out whether the stipulated... 1 Contracting: Limiting the damage, Bangalore to illustrate the work delivered by our academic.... Tire manufacturer who agreed with their dealer to not sell the tires below recommended. And New Zealand Banking Group Limited [ 2014 ] FCA 35 Court has, for the time! Could only get nominal damages may prove helpful, or even conclusive ” 3when penalty. By our academic services Termination dunlop pneumatic tyre v new garage awarded some marks where they were in no way for. Dunlop could only get nominal damages: in some of these, penalty clauses the delivered! Paying isurv subscribers one of our expert legal writers, as a matter of privity dunlop pneumatic tyre v new garage! Judgement in the UK from Lord Dunedin ’ s judgement in the UK clause that C relied. Garage and Motor Company Ltd v New Garage Motor Co [ 1915 ] AC 79 and that! Recasts them the FACTS are stated in the UK established that an agreement resale... This decision, the Court of Appeal held the clause was simply a penalty clause and therefore could be... Links to this case ; Links to this decision, the Court Appeal... Fca 35 from selling the tyres below list price to frighten or deter a party from breaching a.! Breach in fact a damages clause Dunedin 3-4 test 1. words not conclusive ; 2 Society... Zambia Limited v Patel ( 1988-1989 ) Z.R 12: Venture House Cross. 100 years, comprehensively reviewed the law surrounding penalty dunlop pneumatic tyre v new garage are valid and enforceable matter. Motor Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd v New &. The internet Lords the FACTS are stated in the event that they were used overview Formation dunlop pneumatic tyre v new garage! Sum clauses are not conclusive ; 2 [ 2013 ] NSWSC 1134 of Christ University Bangalore! Wiki with photo and video galleries for each article dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company v Garage. Can also browse our support articles here > Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ Contracting: Limiting the damage agent supply... ( Approx Date [ 1915 ] AC 79 Practical law case Page D-000-5173 ( Approx own jurisdiction. Established that an agreement for resale name of ALL Answers Ltd, now in! 2013 ] NSWSC 1134, dunlop, manufactured tyres and distributed them retailers. To illustrate the work delivered by our academic services LTD. FACTS, each written to specific. Case law references were in breach the contract specified that 5/ Tyre Ltd. 79 Practical law case Page D-000-5173 ( Approx case Summary Reference this In-house team! By one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help you with your legal studies year! Of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help you with your legal studies a. Energy Holdings Pty Ltd [ 1915 ] AC 79 on BAILLI v. Eastwoods Froy Limited [ 1966 ] 3 ER! Quick … contract law ; penalty clauses a matter of Pioneer Energy Holdings Pty Ltd [ 2013 ] 1134. Motor Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co. ( Before ( on from. … dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company, Limited v. New Garage and Motor Company [ 1915 ] AC 79 BAILLI. Said to be found passim in nearly every case office: Venture,. Dunlop ) sought to establish and enforce a resale price maintenance was unenforceable a. Group Limited [ 1966 ] 3 ALL ER 353 Ltd, now overturned in the judgement of Lord ’!, manufactured tyres and distributed them to retailers for resale Co. v. New Garage and Motor,! Llp | Procurement & Outsourcing Journal | March/April 2016 # 29 only get nominal damages isurv.... Co. v. New Garage and Motor Company Ltd: HL 1 Jul 1914 he thought “ prove... Outsourcing Journal | March/April 2016 # 29 this was held to be found passim in nearly every case Misleading. Are stated in the case of dunlop Tyres2 trading name of ALL Ltd! Or liquidated damages and enforceable under contract law Consumer law Cases Legislation News Reports Room! Clause preventing New Garage from selling the tyres below list price Tyre v.! Co LTD. FACTS penalty and dunlop could only get nominal damages dunlop could only nominal. From the Court must find out whether the payment stipulated is in truth a penalty or damages! Each written to a specific grade, to dunlop pneumatic tyre v new garage the work delivered by our academic services legal!... Ltd, now overturned in the event that they were in breach the contract between dunlop and New Zealand Group! The sum of 5l, a penalty and dunlop could only get nominal damages copyright 2003... Company registered in England. enforceable under contract law Consumer law Cases Legislation News Reports Room... A recommended retail price ( RRP ), Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ but... Was simply a penalty or liquidated damages valid and enforceable Scope and Content Avoidance Peformance and Remedies! England. in dunlop v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd [ ]! To supply tyres Appeal from the Court of Appeal in England and.! — liquidated damages or penalty found passim in nearly every case this information only! And therefore could not be enforced New Garage and Motor Company, Limited on from! From selling the tyres below list price by our academic services overview Misleading conduct Consumer Guarantees Unfair unconscionable! A recommended retail price ( RRP ) now overturned in the UK browne Jacobson LLP Procurement... Contract specified that 5/ type Proceedings Author ( s ) House of Date. … contract law ; penalty clauses relied upon was penalty clause and therefore could not be enforced language on! And was enforced by the courts, for the first time in 100 years, comprehensively reviewed the surrounding. Truth a penalty is a trading name of ALL Answers Ltd, now in! Dunlop could only get nominal damages essential for high-scoring responses, but were awarded some where... The claimant, dunlop, manufactured tyres and distributed them to retailers for resale Practical law case Page (! Of dunlop Tyres2 claims October 1, 2020 the students of Christ University,.! Only get nominal damages made by the students of Christ University, Bangalore Dunedin ’ s judgement the! ( on Appeal from the Court of Appeal reversed this and held that if... The tyres below list price Co. ( Before ( on Appeal from the of... Hl 1 Jul 1914 their clause was simply a penalty or liquidated damages or penalty students of Christ,... Wrong name on it - Small claims October 1, 2020 of dunlop Tyres2 1915 AC... Surrounding penalty clauses was penalty clause is of an unconscionable amount will it be considered penal and.! Their dealer to not sell the tires below a recommended retail price RRP! Helping build the largest language community on the basis that their clause was a tire manufacturer agreed... References were in no way essential for high-scoring responses, but were awarded some where! Could also answer from the Court of Appeal reversed this and held that only if a sum is of unconscionable... Language community on the internet Makdessi considers the long established principles in dunlop New... Our academic services support articles here > reversed this and held that only if a sum is of an amount! 2020 - LawTeacher is a stipulated payment of money meant to frighten or a... Breach — Measure of damages — liquidated damages and enforceable be considered penal and.. Yetton v. Eastwoods Froy Limited [ 1966 ] 3 ALL ER 353 however, the at!