Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd

The Jolly Contrarian Law Reports Our own, snippy, in-house court reporting service. Go Premium A shelf in the JC’s law library yesterday Editorial Board of the JCLR: Managing Editor: Lord Justice Cocklecarrot M.R. · General Editor: Sir Jerrold Baxter-Morley, K.C. · Principle witness: Mrs. Pinterman Common law | Litigation | Contract | Tort | Click ᐅ to expand: Case notes Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you. Sign up for our newsletter.

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79, is a leading case on penalty clauses (bad) and liquidated damages clauses (good).

Lord Dunedin had suggested the following often quoted factors:

• if the sum stipulated for is “extravagant” and “unconscionable” in amount in comparison with the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach.
• if the breach consisted only in the non-payment of money and the provision provided for the payment of a larger sum.
• if the same sum is payable in a number of events of varying gravity (this is a rebuttable presumption).
• A provision is not penal by reason only of the impossibility of precisely pre-estimating the true loss.

Glossed over more recently by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis and Cavendish Square Holdings v El Makdessi, which seem better fit for the kinder, gentler world we now inhabit.

See also

• Penalty clause
• ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis
• Cavendish Square Holdings v El Makdessi