P entered into a contract with Morse to install a burglar alarm system at P's pawn shop. P paid $1,500 and $150 each month thereafter for a period of five years. Morse was purchased by the Honeywell, (D) which assumed responsibility under the agreement. A burglary occurred at P's business, and D refused to pay any more than $50 toward the loss. P sought damages in the amount of $68,303 for loss of merchandise. P alleged negligence for D's failure to transmit a burglar alarm signal to the police. D claimed that its liability, whether based upon negligence or breach of contract, was limited to liquidated damages in the amount of $50 as set forth in Paragraph (18) of the contract. The court entered a summary judgment for P, but limited damages to the sum of $50. P appealed, and the court of appeals rested its conclusion upon two grounds: (1) that the provision for liquidated damages, under the facts of this case, was in the nature of a penalty, and (2) that the small standard print of the contract, as prepared by Morse, provided 'an irreconcilable internal contradiction between the clearcut promises found in paragraph 8 and the exculpatory clause which modifies the substantive provisions of paragraph 18.' D appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.