Liquidated damages are a regular feature of construction contracts. This blog explains what they are and why you should use them.
What are Liquidated Damages?
Liquidated damages in construction are a contractually agreed upon sum of money that one party to a contract must pay the other party if they breach the contract. This sum is intended to provide the non-breaching party with compensation for any losses or damages they incur as a result of the breach. In the case of construction contracts, they are most often used in the context of delays to completion of the works.
The use of liquidated damages allows parties to a contract to agree in advance on an appropriate amount of compensation for a breach, rather than leaving it up to a court to determine the appropriate level of damages at a later date. This can provide certainty and clarity for both parties and can help to avoid costly and time-consuming legal disputes.
What terms must be met for liquidated damages to be enforceable?
In order for liquidated damages to be enforceable, they must be a reasonable estimate of the actual damages that the non-breaching party is likely to incur as a result of the breach. This means that the amount of liquidate damages must be based on a good faith estimate of the likely damages, and must not be so excessive as to amount to penalty clauses.
If a court determines that the amount of liquidated damage is not a reasonable estimate of the actual damages, it may reduce the amount of ascertained damages awarded or may even refuse to enforce the provision for liquidated damages altogether. In such cases, the non-breaching party would be left to seek compensation for their losses through other legal means, such as by suing for actual damages.
What to consider when determining provisions for liquidated damages
There are a few key considerations that parties to a contract should keep in mind when determining whether to include a provision for liquidated damages. First, they should carefully consider the potential losses or damages that the non-breaching party is likely to incur as a result of a breach and should make a good faith effort to estimate those damages. This will help to ensure that the amount of liquidated damages is reasonable and enforceable.
Second, parties should be aware that the inclusion of a provision for liquidated damages may not always be appropriate. For example, if the potential losses or damages that the non-breaching party is likely to incur as a result of a breach are difficult to estimate, it may be better to leave the determination of damages to a court.
Are liquidated damages beneficial?
In conclusion, a liquidated damages clause is a useful tool for parties to a contract to provide for a predetermined amount of compensation in the event of a breach. However, they should be used carefully, and only after careful consideration of the potential losses or damages that the non-breaching party is likely to incur.
Contact Our Construction Team
At Myerson, our Construction Team offers advice on all aspects of contentious and non-contentious issues. For more information on the range of legal services we can provide, please email Myerson’s Construction Team at lawyers@myerson.co.uk or call:
0161 941 4000
Latest Myerson Construction Law News
RICS Summary Adjudication Procedure
"Smash and grab" adjudications are one of the most common ways a contractor can seek to recover outstanding debts under a construction contract. Small to medium-sized contractors can often face difficulties, however, when the value of the unpaid debt is below £20,000. Whilst adjudications are a quick, cost-effective process for the recovery of...
Read Blog
JCT 2024 – JCT Announces Next Edition of JCT Contracts
It has been expected for some time, but finally, the JCT has announced that it will be updating its suite of contracts , and it will be the JCT 2024 Edition which is likely to be published in the spring. The likely publication date is expected to depend on the finalisation of all of the secondary legislation being issued for the Building Safety...
Read Blog
"Set off" in the Enforcement of an Adjudicator's Decision
On Friday, 5 May 2023, the Technology and Construction Court ("TCC") handed down its Judgment in the case of FK Construction Ltd v ISG Retail Ltd. The Judgment acts as a reminder of the few situations in which set off may arise in proceedings to enforce an adjudicator's decision. Background ISG Retail Limited ("ISG") was engaged as the main...
Read Blog
Tenant's Fit-Out Works and Insurance: Who Takes On The Risk?
The question of insurance is often a reoccurring issue when it comes to the procurement of fit-out works to a premises that forms part of a larger multi-let building. Tenants need to consider insurance for the existing building and insurance for the fit-out works. Whilst the agreement for lease or license to alter enables the fit-out works to be...
Read Blog
The Meaning of "Day" – TCC Judgment in Elements (Europe) Ltd v FK Building Ltd 2023
On 21 March 2023, the Technology and Construction Court ("TCC") handed down its judgment in the case of Elements (Europe) Ltd v FK Building Ltd. The judgment focuses on the validity of a payment application and provides clarity as to what is meant by a "calendar day". It is worth highlighting that the parties in dispute had settled the matter...
Read Blog
Myerson Assists Matillion with Their Office Relocation
Myerson have advised Matillion in relation to their office relocation to Two New Bailey in the Salford gateway site, which is the latest extension to Manchester’s Central Business District. Matillion have taken a 10-year lease of 27,000 sq ft from Salford City Council. Other tenants in the building include Eversheds Sutherland and the Competition...
Read News