Absurd was too strong. However this is a clear cut example of a situation where reasonable minds can disagree, as evidenced by the first appeals court reversing the decision because: “Hines appealed and the Appeals Court reversed, concluding that the provision was an unenforceable penalty because it didn’t account for the fact that Cummings could (and in fact did) re-let the space and mitigate its damages.”
I am not sure I agree w/ the logic of the doctrine but I definitely have an issue with the double-dipping of receiving the liquidated damages and also receiving new rent. I am not sure the logic behind the doctrine is more persuasive than the common sense idea that a judgment for you should simply “make you whole” and, in severe cases, penalize the loser with punitive damages.
But again, Leo’s stupidity caused this and he and his attorney should have negotiated a better lease agreement.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
