Dave Gustafson & Co. v. State
South Dakota Supreme Court
156 N.W.2d 185 (1968)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
In October 1963, Dave Gustafson & Company (Gustafson) (plaintiff) contracted with the South Dakota State Highway Commission (the commission) (defendant) for Gustafson to perform construction work on a new public highway. The contract stated that time was an essential element because of the costs and public inconvenience that could result from delays in completing the highway. The contract further provided that if Gustafson failed to complete the construction work by the agreed-upon date, the commission would deduct a specified amount from Gustafson’s payment as liquidated damages for each day of delay. The contract set forth a graduated scale of damages that increased as the dollar amount of the contract increased. For contracts between $500,001 and $1 million, the specified damages were $210 per day. Gustafson ultimately completed work on the highway 67 days after the agreed-upon date. The contractual amount owed Gustafson for the work was $530,742.14, but the commission deducted $14,070 from that amount, calculated as $210 per day multiplied by 67. Gustafson sued the commission and the State of South Dakota (defendant) in South Dakota state court, asserting that the damages provision in the contract should be construed as an impermissible penalty rather than an enforceable liquidated-damages provision. The trial court found that the provision was a liquidated-damages provision, and Gustafson appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hanson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.