CUMMINGS PROPERTIES, LLC v. DARRYL C. HINES., 201 N.E.3d 295 (2022)

Citation: CUMMINGS PROPERTIES, LLC v. DARRYL C. HINES., 201 N.E.3d 295 (2022)
Parent Document: CUMMINGS PROPERTIES, LLC v. DARRYL C. HINES., 201 N.E.3d 295 (2022)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2022-12-05
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10271850/cummings-properties-llc-v-darr... ↗

Full Text

1,089 chars

We disagree with Cummings's suggestion that National Communications is binding on the issue before us and requires that we uphold the judgment. While the facts of National Communications are similar, the court did not address in that case whether a rent acceleration clause is a penalty if it allows the landlord to collect both the full amount of rent owed under the lease and rent from a new tenant. Rather, the issue was whether "in the case of a commercial agreement between sophisticated parties containing a liquidated damages provision applicable to breaches of multiple covenants, it may be presumed that the parties intended the provision to apply only to those material breaches for which it may properly be enforced." National Communications, 449 Mass. at 495-496. As the court specifically noted, the tenant there had made no attempt to show that the stipulated amount was disproportionate to a reasonable estimate of expected damages, offering instead "only an assertion . . . that the liquidated damages provision was an unenforceable penalty as a matter of law." Id. at 497.

Other Sections in This Document (38)

Full Text