SAMSON SALES, INC. V. HONEYWELL, INC. 465 N.E.2d 392 (1984) CASE BRIEF

SAMSON SALES, INC. V. HONEYWELL, INC.

465 N.E.2d 392 (1984)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Honeywell (D) appealed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, which reversed the decision of the trial court and found that Sampson (P) customer was entitled to damages in excess of those specified in a contract for alarm service.

FACTS: P entered into a contract with Morse to install a burglar alarm system at P's pawn shop. P paid $1,500 and $150 each month thereafter for a period of five years. Morse was purchased by the Honeywell, (D) which assumed responsibility under the agreement. A burglary occurred at P's business and D refused to pay any more than $50 toward the loss. P sought damages in the amount of $68,303 for loss of merchandise. P alleged negligence for D's failure to transmit a burglar alarm signal to the police. D claimed that its liability, whether based upon negligence or breach of contract, was limited to liquidated damages in the amount of $50 as set forth in Paragraph (18) of the contract. The court entered a summary judgment for P, but limited damages to the sum of $50. P appealed, and the court of appeals rested its conclusion upon two grounds: (1) that the provision for liquidated damages, under the facts of this case, was in the nature of a penalty, and (2) that the small standard print of the contract, as prepared by Morse, provided 'an irreconcilable internal contradiction between the clearcut promises found in paragraph 8 and the exculpatory clause which modifies the substantive provisions of paragraph 18.' D appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner