United States: Liquidated Damages In The Nation's Capital

Last Updated: July 8 2019
Article by Cristian Kelly

Purchase agreements in the District of Columbia — particularly for residential properties — often purport to give the seller an option of remedies if the buyer fails to perform. For example:

[T]he deposit herein provided for may be forfeited at the option of the seller, in which event the purchaser shall be relieved from further liability hereunder, or, without forfeiting the said deposit, the seller may avail himself of any legal or equitable rights which he may have under this contract.

Sheffield v. Paul T. Stone, Inc., 98 F.2d 250, 251 (D.C. Cir. 1938). The plain text gives the seller the best of three worlds; the seller can either keep the buyer's earnest money deposit or pursue legal or equitable remedies.

It will shock you to learn that buyers and sellers over the years have disagreed on how these clauses should be enforced. On the one hand, some buyers have argued that sellers should not be allowed to retain the earnest money deposit at all (particularly where the seller went on to sell the property for the same price or more). Other buyers have argued that the seller must refund the deposit immediately if the seller intends to seek legal or equitable damages. On the other hand, sellers have argued that they should be allowed to "wait and see" whether they are able to resell the property, and for how much, before electing a remedy (i.e., electing the liquidated damages option only if it exceeds the amount of their actual damages).

Courts in the District have relied primarily on three basic principles to determine the seller's damages when a buyer walks away in breach of a purchase agreement:

  1. Look to the plain text of the contract to determine the intent of the parties.
  2. Liquidated damages may be enforceable, particularly where traditional justifications exist.
  3. Penalty clauses are generally unenforceable.

To help fill in the details of how these principles actually play out in the District, the ACREL Acquisitions Committee posed 13 questions about how D.C. courts approach remedy-options clauses. Here's what we found.

1. Are liquidated damages an exclusive remedy or may the seller also pursue specific performance?

D.C. courts will attempt to enforce the intent of the contracting parties and will look to the terms of the contract to determine whether liquidated damages are intended to be an exclusive remedy. See Barnette v. Sayers, 289 F. 567, 569 (D.C. 1923) ("'The question always is, what did the parties intend by the language used?'...[I]f the intent of the parties can be ascertained from the contract, it should be enforced." (quoting United States v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 205 U.S. 105, 119 (1907)); accord Vicki Bagley Realty, Inc. v. Laufer, 482 A.2d 359, 367 (D.C. 1984). In the context of liquidated damages, this principle is generally consistent with Powell on Real Property, which would allow parties to contract for liquidated damages as a non-exclusive remedy. See § 81.04 ("The mere fact that there is a liquidated damages provision does not necessarily force a party to forego the specific performance remedy."). And while D.C. courts have not explicitly endorsed Powell on this point, sympathy for the Powell rule can nonetheless be inferred from several holdings. For example, the D.C. Circuit in Sheffield (one of the more frequently cited cases on the issue) observed that:

When plaintiffs' breach [occurred] two alternative remedies, apart from a suit for specific performance, were open to defendants: (1) to "forfeit" the deposit, i.e. to retain it as liquidated damages and call the deal off; (2) to establish the actual damages by selling the house to third persons, and hold plaintiffs for the damages so established.

98 F.2d at 252 (emphasis added); see also Rowe v. Shehyn, 192 F. Supp. 428, 431–32 (D.D.C 1961) (discussing Sheffield); In re Cooper, 273 B.R. 297, 304 (Bankr. D.D.C. 2002) (same). Accordingly, D.C. courts have enforced damages clauses that offer the non-breaching party the option to choose among other remedies, e.g., Barnette, 289 F. at 569, and have not held that liquidated damages are an inherently exclusive remedy.

It should be noted, however, that D.C. courts have sent mixed messages regarding the availability of specific performance as an equitable remedy for a buyer's breach of a real estate purchase agreement. In older cases, the D.C. Court of Appeals implied that a seller could pursue specific performance against a breaching buyer as a matter of course (e.g., Sheffield, 98 F.2d at 252 (1938)). But more recently, the court observed, in dicta, that because a buyer's breach "would be fairly compensable by monetary damages," a seller does not have a "corresponding right to require specific performance of the contemplated transaction." Stanford Hotels Corp. v. Potomac Creek Assocs., L.P., 18 A.3d 725, 740 n.11 (D.C. 2011) (citing Kesler v. Marshall, 792 N.E.2d 893, 896–97 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)). Given the preference of D.C. courts for enforcing the intent of the parties, it is possible, but not certain, that a contract explicitly granting the seller the option of specific performance or liquidated damages would be enforced on its terms—subject to certain limiting principles discussed in the sections below.

2. Are liquidated damages an exclusive damage remedy or may the seller have an enforceable option to pursue liquidated damages or actual damages?

Parties may contract for an enforceable option to pursue liquidated damages or actual damages. D.C. courts have ruled on a series of cases involving substantially similar clauses in property sale contracts giving the seller the option to either retain the buyer's deposit as liquidated damages, or pursue any other available legal or equitable rights, such as actual damages. E.g., Sheffield, 98 F.2d 250; Barnette, 289 F. 567; Rowe, 192 F. Supp. 428.

3. If a seller has an option to choose liquidated damages or actual damages, may it have both?

Enforcing contracts with clauses that give the seller the right to choose liquidated damages or actual damages, D.C. courts have awarded liquidated damages or actual damages, but not both. E.g., Sheffield, 98 F.2d 250; Barnette, 289 F. 567.

Courts look to the words and actions of the non-breaching party to identify which remedy the non-breaching party has elected. For example, after the buyer in Sheffield failed to consummate the purchase, the seller sent a letter informing buyer of its intent to resell the house and hold buyer liable for any shortfall (i.e., actual damages). Seller then resold the house (at a higher price), and was not permitted to keep buyer's deposit as liquidated damages.

4. If a seller may choose liquidated damages or actual damages, but not both, when must it decide?

D.C. courts have attempted to discourage sellers from taking a "wait and see" approach—instead looking to the seller's actions following the breach to determine whether or not seller has elected liquidated damages:

[Sellers] cannot be permitted to make their choice between liquidated and actual damages after they have determined which are greater; for the intent of the option clause is not to give them that advantage, but to make it unnecessary for them to ascertain actual damages.

Sheffield, 98 F.2d at 252 (enforcing a contract with a liquidated damages "option"). This reasoning is also consistent with one of the core justifications for liquidated damages (i.e., reducing the burden on the non-breaching party where damages will be difficult to prove or ascertain). If the seller is allowed to sell the property to another buyer and then elect liquidated damages (that is, if liquidated damages are greater than seller's actual shortfall in the subsequent sale) then the liquidated damages clause looks more like a penalty than an attempt to ensure a fair and efficient outcome.

Despite this reasoning, the Sheffield court also emphasized that seller's retention of the deposit following buyer's breach does not, in and of itself, signal that the seller has opted for liquidated damages. The Sheffield court stated that the seller could be entitled to retain the deposit as an offset against actual damages sustained. This approach would seem to encourage a seller to retain the deposit while it weighs its options, without committing itself to one course or the other until it has a sense of whether the liquidated damages or actual damages will be greater. To avoid this incentive, the parties can contract for a limited duration liquidated damages option, forcing the seller to elect one variety of damages over the other within a certain amount of time. E.g., Vicki Bagley Realty, 482 A.2d at 367 (the contract at issue here provided that in order to pursue a legal or equitable remedy, as opposed to forfeit of the deposit, seller must notify buyer within 30 days after buyer's breach).

5. Is there an applicable statute addressing liquidated damages clauses?

There is not a generally applicable statute governing liquidated damages in real estate transactions. Nonetheless, D.C.'s codification of the UCC reflects some of the same core principles on liquidated damages that guide courts in the context of real estate transactions:

Damages for breach by either party may be liquidated in the agreement but only at an amount which is reasonable in the light of the anticipated or actual harm caused by the breach, the difficulties of proof of loss, and the inconvenience or nonfeasibility of otherwise obtaining an adequate remedy. A term fixing unreasonably large liquidated damages is void as a penalty.

D.C. Code § 28:2-718. The UCC diverges from the case law, however, by judging reasonableness either prospectively (i.e., the "anticipated" harm at the time of the agreement) or retrospectively (i.e., the "actual" harm caused by the breach). By contrast, the courts have construed liquidated damages clauses "as of the date of [] execution." See Question 8, below.

6. What is the test for a valid liquidated damages clause?

D.C. courts have discussed certain criteria that tend to support the finding of an enforceable liquidated damages clause, as opposed to an unenforceable "penalty." E.g., Vicki Bagley Realty, 482 A.2d at 367-68. First and foremost, "[u]ncertainty in amount and difficulty of ascertainment of damages," support the validity of a liquidated damages clause. Barnette, 289 F. at 570; accord District of Columbia v. Harlan & Hollingsworth Co., 30 App. D.C. 270, 279 (1908); Emack v. Campbell, 14 App. D.C. 186, 194-95 (1899). Conversely, "agreements to pay fixed sums plainly without reasonable relation to any probable damage which may follow a breach will not be enforced." Vicki Bagley Realty, 482 A.2d at 368 n.22 (quoting Burns v. Hanover Ins. Co., 454 A.2d 325, 327 (D.C. 1982)).

7. Who has the burden of proof?

We have not seen any discussion of a departure from the generally applicable burden of proof in the context of liquidated damages.

8. As of when is "reasonableness" tested?

In evaluating a liquidated damages clause, "the contract must be construed as of the date of its execution." Barnette, 289 F. at 570; accord Schwartz v. Rettger, 83 A.2d 279, 280 (D.C. 1951) (citing Davy v. Crawford, 147 F.2d 574 (D.C. Cir. 1945)).

9. What percentage of the purchase price is likely acceptable as liquidated damages?

The purchase price may be relevant to the validity of a liquidated damages clause, but there does not appear to be a bright line numeric formula. The D.C. Court of Appeals has cited the "often applied" rule as follows: "[I] f the amount claimed to be liquidated damages is disproportionate to the entire consideration of the contract, some inference may arise that it was not intended in the contract to provide for such damages." Barnette, 289 F. at 570 (emphasis added).

10. Are actual damages relevant for liquidated damages and, in particular, will liquidated damages be allowed when there are no actual damages?

To the extent that the liquidated damages clause is "construed as of the date of its execution," Barnette, 289 F. 567 at 570, actual damages would seem to be irrelevant. Thus, the fact that a seller may have eventually recouped its loss and sustained no actual damages should "not [be] taken into consideration." Id.

11. Is mitigation relevant for liquidated damages?

To the extent that actual damages are not relevant to a court's enforcement of a liquidated damages clause, then a party's attempt (or lack thereof) to mitigate its damages would also seem to be irrelevant. However, the terms of a certain contract might explicitly assign either or both parties an affirmative duty to mitigate their damages. Where both a liquidated damages clause and a mitigation of damages clause operate in the same contract, the D.C. District Court has reconciled the two as follows:

[T]o reconcile the clauses, the court interprets the liquidated-damages clause to apply only when the seller is unable to resell the property. Papago [Tribal Util. Auth. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, , 610 F.2d 914, 929 D.C. Cir. 1979]. In other words, the defendant must use its best efforts to resell the property and upon doing so, the defendant shall remit to the plaintiffs any portion of the deposit not needed to make it whole. Id. If, however, the defendant is unable to resell the property, the liquidated-damages clause applies, allowing the defendant to retain the plaintiffs' entire deposit. Id. This construction of the termination agreement sacrifices neither clause on the altar of the other but rather assures the functionality of both.

Shulman v. Voyou, L.L.C., 251 F. Supp. 2d 166, 169 (D.D.C. 2003).

12. Is a "Shotgun Liquidated Damages Clause" enforceable?

We have not seen any discussion of shotgun liquidated damages clauses under District of Columbia law.

13. Does a liquidated damages clause preclude recovery of attorneys' fees by the seller?

Where the parties have contracted for the breaching party to pay the non-breaching party's legal expenses, D.C. law permits the non-breaching party to collect such costs in addition to liquidated damages. For example, in Swanson v. Martins, 232 F. Supp. 3d 23, 26 (D.D.C. 2017), the "contract provided that, if one party breaches the agreement and the other 'retains legal counsel to enforce its rights' under the contract, the non-breaching party 'shall be entitled to recover...all of its reasonable Legal Expenses incurred in enforcing its rights under this Agreement.'" The court held that Plaintiff was entitled to attorneys' fees as well as liquidated damages.

Originally published by The Practical Real Estate Lawyer.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions