This case highlights the court’s flexibility. Ordinarily, when a person signs a contract with someone else, the courts will hold the parties to the terms of the agreement. In this case, there was no dispute, for instance, about the fact that a 20-percent-of-salary liquidated damages provision was in the contract between the plaintiff and the school district. Yet, as the reasoning in the case made clear, there are certain ground rules that must be satisfied before the court enforces the provisions of a contract.
1. What evidence would Klyap have had to possess for him to have prevailed in this case? Clue: Follow the court’s reasoning step-by-step to see what the judge checked before agreeing to enforce the contract.
2. Why might the court have not enforced the contract provision in question had the liquidated damages provision been 40 percent, rather than 20 percent? Clue: Is it likely that Klyap would have agreed freely to such a provision?
