Jensen Jr., D A (1993) Liquidated damages clauses in construction contracts: A study of the application preference of the three-prong test by the appellate court system. PhD thesis, Texas A&M University, USA.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to test each test prong of the three prong test courts utilize to assess the validity of a liquidated damages clause in a construction contract. One hundred seventy-five cases were reviewed by six research investigators. The cases were reviewed to determine whether the intent test, difficulty test, and reasonableness test were applied by the court and if so, whether each test was applied at time of contract, time of trial, or at time undefined. The test results demonstrated that the courts display an application preference for the difficulty test and reasonableness test in that order. Currently, the intent test is not a test measurement employed by the courts in the enforceability question of a liquidated damages clause. The results further indicate that the difficulty test and reasonableness test were applied most often at time of contract.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Craig, J and Degelman, L |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | measurement; liquidated damages |
| Index terms: | preference, liquidated damages, construction contract, validity |
| Subjects: | evaluation and assessment methods, contract type, contractual remedy, decision-making and reasoning |
| Topics: | Procurement, Research Practice, Contract Administration |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here