Liquidated Damages and the Doctrine of Penalties: Rethinking the War on Terrorem

Accessing papers

If you are logged in as a member or a registered academic, you will see a link to download the paper for FREE. The link is just above the Add to Cart button.

If you wish to purchase the paper, you must be logged in first (click here to log in, or click here to register). You will then see the Add to Cart button. You may also have a choice of preferred format if both are available - PDF download costs £3 inc VAT, printed version costs £7.50 inc postage (no VAT). Choosing one or the other changes the price displayed.

When you are ready to check out, use the 'View basket' link in the top left of the website.

Matthew Bell

May 2011

A paper based on the joint second prize entry in the Hudson Prize essay competition 2010 presenting to a meeting of the Society of Construction Law in London on 26th May 2011

The underlying premise of the paper is that, where commercial parties have freely agreed, within a binding contract, to a regime for liquidated damages (LDs) which is expressed in terms sufficiently certain to be enforced, the law should uphold its enforcement. The modern approach places a high barrier in the path of a party seeking to overturn an LDs provision on the basis that it is penal. However, the jurisprudential foundations of the penalty doctrine remain and the law maintains a prohibition upon parties using LDs provisions to enforce performance by placing the other in fear - terrorem - of breach. Matthew Bell argues that this prohibition has outlived its usefulness. He describes the commercial impetus for the use of LDs provisions in construction contracts; he outlines the history and current state of the law relating to deterrence within the penalty doctrine; he offers a critique of the current law and proposes an alternative formulation of the doctrine of penalties based upon whether the allegedly penal component serves a purpose other than the proper performance of the contract.

A. Introduction - B. The commercial impetus for LDs in construction contracting - LDs as a risk mitigation measure - Challenges to enforceability - C. Evolution of the doctrine of penalties - Pre-Dunlop history - The Dunlop test - Current approaches to the deterrence element - D. Satisfactory outcomes built on unsatisfactory foundations? - E. Conclusion: back to the future? - Considerations underpinning a revised formulation - A return to the collateral purpose test?

Matthew Bell is a Lecturer and Co-Director of Studies for Construction Law at the Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne, Australia.

Text 17 pages.

Paper number: 
168
May 2011, printed/online, 340k
£3.00

Our papers

The Society has published nearly 400 papers since 1984. Some are published both in hard copy and electronically (numbered), others in electronic format only (number prefixed 'D'). The hard copy papers can be purchased (except those marked with an asterisk which are no longer available). They are all also available as PDF files to download.

Those available as downloads can be accessed free by members and registered academics (students and staff) - if logged in, they will see a link to the file just above the Add to Cart button on each paper's page. Others can purchase the PDF file for a cost of £3.00. Note that this sum includes VAT, since VAT is chargeable on digital files.

For further instructions on downloading, click here. The PDF file will only open on your computer if you have Adobe Acrobat installed (to obtain a free copy, click here). To save the paper to your computer, choose the 'save' icon on the Acrobat toolbar before opening the paper.

For personal use only

The papers on this website are for use by SCL members (and those who pay for them) only, and papers may be downloaded, printed and/or otherwise retained for that purpose only by members of the SCL (and those who purchase them).  The availability of all papers past and present represents a significant benefit to members of SCL and wider dissemination of SCL papers dilutes that to the detriment of the membership.  Further and more importantly, copyright in the papers belongs jointly to the writers of the paper and to the SCL, and the SCL is not therefore in a position to provide any wider licence.  Accordingly the SCL asks members and those who purchase papers not to disseminate papers more widely than their licence allows (e.g. by posting them on internal legal resource intranet databases and the like). 

Feedback