The notice says, “We publish to remind practitioners whose clients dispute payments over time, how they can incentivize immediate payment, and what can happen if they are done wrong.” The court cited with the agreement Jade Fashion &Co. v. Harkham Indus., Inc., 229 Cal. App. 4th 635, 650 (2014), which stated that “Section 1671 allows the parties to agree on a rebate for the timely payment of a recognized debt.” The court then found that “this is not the way the parties structured their agreement in this case. Despite repeated claims to the contrary by the parties to Osteroid, nothing in the settlement agreement or appeal minutes shows that R& admitted to owed $2.8 million. Viscardi made a payment of $10,000, but did not make the remaining two payments, which was contrary to the settlement agreement. He then refused to accept the verdict. The complainant appealed pending the application of the settlement agreement and requested a summary judgment. The worker breached the provision and the employer filed a complaint. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals ruled that the clause was not a lump sum provision for damages, as it did not limit the amount of damages to a certain amount, nor did it justify a binding agreement that could not be modified to address the actual harm. The Tribunal found that the provision stipulated that the non-competition agreement between the parties stated that the employer was not required to prove harm and that the amount of damages was at least as high as the payment of the transaction.
The Tribunal found that the agreement was both appropriate and enforceable. A lump sum damages clause has three main features: (1) clear language that provides that in the event of an infringement, a certain amount must be paid; 2. The amount must constitute adequate compensation for the damage expected from the infringement, measured prospectively at the time of conclusion of the contract and not a posteriori at the time of the infringement; and (3) a binding agreement prior to the facts, which must not be modified to correspond to the actual damage found a posteriori. If the amount set by the flat-rate damage scheme is too large, the parties may have the provision found to be inapplicable by a court. In such a case, the party seeking enforcement would have to prove its actual harm, which would defeat the purpose of a lump sum provision for damages (which must prevent the party from proving an amount that is difficult to identify). Red & White Distribution, above, began with an action by Osteroid Enterprise, LLC and its sponsor Eric Oster to collect a debt note of $US 1,800,000. After granting a request for a summary decision on the contractual claim, the parties terminated the case by entering into a “payment agreement” providing for payments of US$2,100,000 over a one-year period by Red & White. Part of the transaction was a provision relating to the registration of the award stipulating that in the event of late payment Osteroid could obtain a judgment of $2,800,000, plus interest and attorneys` fees, through an ex parte application.
. . .