164 Ind. App. 607 - Mandle v. Owens’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We hereby deposit with you earnest money in the sum of Three Hundred ($300.00) Dollars, to be applied as part of the purchase price for said real estate at the time of delivery of deed. “This proposition shall be treated as made to the owner of said property, and shall remain open for acceptance for the period of ten (10) days from this date and if accepted, the above amount is to apply as part of purchase price, and if refused same is to be refunded. If offer is accepted and we fail to complete the purchase of the real estate herein men tioned as provided herein, the amount of Three Hundred ($300.00) dollars will be forfeited to you.” [Emphasis added.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mandle v. Owens · Rogers v. Lockard

2. ““It is not always easy to distinguish between a penalty and liquidated damages, but it has been generally held by the courts that when the damages likely to be occasioned by the breach are uncertain, and the sum fixed to be recovered on such breach is not grossly excessive or unjust, it will be treated as liquidated damages, but if the damages likely to be occasioned by the breach are susceptible of certain proof, and the amount stipulated to be paid on such breach is in excess of that amount, it will be treated as a penalty. * * “This rule, however, is not applicable to a contract for the sale or exchange of real estate where the damages likely to arise on account of a breach are uncertain. In such contracts it is proper for the parties in advance of a breach to estimate the damages consequent upon a breach and agree upon their measure. Such an agreement, when entered into in good faith, will be enforced.” Mandle v. Owens, (1975) Ind. App., 330 N.E.2d 362 at 364 , quoting Tudor v. Beath, (1921) 76 Ind. App. 526 , 131 N.E. 848 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mandle v. Owens

3. “clause does not per se restrict a party from recovering additional damages. 10 Id. at 293 . Nevertheless, the Beck court held that the parties there expressly designated the deposit as liqgui-dated damages rather than as a penalty or forfeiture, and although not conclusive, this suggested the intent of the parties to limit their remedy to the recovery of liquidated damages. Id. In another similar case, Mandle, the buyers agreed to purchase the sellers' home for $30,000, and made an earnest money deposit in the amount of $300. The contract in that case stated,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rogers v. Lockard