Schroeder v. Partin
151 Idaho 471
| Idaho | 2011Background
- Schroeder hired Partin to assemble a specialty Barracuda engine; initial contract contemplated parts provision and $950 for assembly with no fixed deadline.
- Partin drafted a Performance Agreement dated Sept. 23-24, 2008 imposing a delivery deadline of Oct. 8, 2008 and liquidated damages: $2,500 plus $100 per day thereafter.
- Schroeder signed the Performance Agreement; Partin did not deliver by Oct. 8, 2008; delivery occurred on December 23, 2008, 75 days late.
- Jury found Partin liable for breach of the services contract and that the Performance Agreement was a valid liquidated damages clause; award included $10,000 for breach of the Agreement; Schroeder liable for unpaid parts/services.
- District court granted Partin’s JNOV and awarded both sides all attorney fees; Schroeder appealed the JNOV and fee awards.
- Idaho Supreme Court vacated the JNOV and the fee awards, remanding for reinstatement of the jury verdict in Schroeder’s favor and for proper apportionment of fees on appeal; Schroeder awarded fees on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the Performance Agreement’s liquidated damages enforceable? | Schroeder argues the clause is enforceable as a reasonable estimate of damages. | Partin argues the clause is a penalty and unenforceable due to lack of proper relation to damages. | Enforceable; substantial evidence supports reasonableness of damages. |
| Who bears the burden of proof/production on enforceability? | Schroeder contends the district court correctly placed burden on Schroeder to show damages. | Partin contends he bore burden to show enforceability and existence of damages. | Partin bore burden of production; record showed substantial evidence supporting enforceability. |
| Did the district court err in granting JNOV on the liquidated damages issue? | Schroeder contends the jury’s finding on enforceability should stand given the evidence. | Partin contends the jury’s verdict on enforceability was incorrect as a matter of law. | District court erred; substantial evidence supports enforceability; JNOV vacated. |
| Should attorney fees be apportioned rather than awarded to both sides? | Schroeder argues fees should be awarded to the prevailing party on appeal and trial record based on I.R.C.P. 54. | Partin argues equal attorney-fee awards are appropriate since both sides prevailed on different claims. | District court abused discretion; apportion attorney fees per claims prevailed and remanded for proper allocation; Schroeder to receive fees on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graves v. Cupic, 75 Idaho 451 (Idaho 1954) (establishes the test for enforceability of liquidated damages)
- City of Idaho Falls v. Beco Const. Co., Inc., 123 Idaho 516 (Idaho 1993) (damages recoverable for actual damages when liquidated clause unenforceable)
- Howard v. Bar Bell Land & Cattle Co., 81 Idaho 189 (Idaho 1959) (burden of proof includes production and persuasion)
- Clampitt v. A.M.R. Corp., 109 Idaho 145 (Idaho 1985) (unconscionability and penalty considerations for liquidated damages)
- Eldred v. C.L. Folkman Co., 93 Idaho 131 (Idaho 1969) (validates using daily fair rental value as liquidated damages)
- Wattenbarger v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 150 Idaho 308 (Idaho 2010) (liquidated damages and unconscionability considerations)
- Ramco v. H-K Contractors, Inc., 118 Idaho 108 (Idaho 1990) (apportionment of costs and severing claims for fee analysis)
- Weaver v. Village of Bancroft, 92 Idaho 189 (Idaho 1968) (owner may testify to market value of property)