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

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

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.

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

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