Appeals, Nos. 329, 335, and 336, Oct. T., 1960, from orders of Municipal Court of Philadelphia County, Nov. T., 1959, No. 1492, and Oct. T., 1959, No. 879, in cases of Unit Vending Corporation v. Tobin Enterprises, Inc., and Same v. Eugene Ciardullo et al. Orders affirmed; reargument refused May 7, 1961.
Melvin L. Fuhrman, with him Fuhrman and Furman, for appellant.
Allen J. Levin, and Folz, Bard, Kamsler, Goodis & Greenfield, for appellee, submitted a brief.
Jerome A. O'Neill, for appellees.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, Watkins, and Montgomery, JJ.
[ 194 Pa. Super. Page 472]
These three appeals were taken from the action of the court below in opening two amicably confessed judgments "so that evidence may be offered to ascertain the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff." As to both judgments the court below said: "Thus the plaintiff may be unjustly enriched by assessing damages
[ 194 Pa. Super. Page 473]
in accordance with the formula contained in the agreement. We believe that this formula cannot be sustained as liquidated damages and is in effect a penalty."
If the amount of damages assessed is subsequently adjudged unreasonable in the light of either anticipated or actual harm, the contractual provision will be voided as a penalty: Restatement, Contracts, § 339; 12A PS § 2-718.
The present appeals involve an interpretation of two written contracts containing authorization to enter judgments upon breach or imminent breach of the contracts. For an understanding of the matter both contracts must be carefully studied. The two contracts are the same except as to clauses 1 ...