Legal Opinion · Dissent

Minnick v. CLEARWIRE US LLC

Washington Supreme Court

Decided May 3, 2012No. 85810-1Published

1DissentChambers, J.

¶34 (dissenting) — The fundamental difference between liquidated damages and an alternative performance provision is that an alternative performance is intended by the parties — both parties — to be a real choice, while a liquidated damages provision is meant to be a device to ensure performance. Clearwire’s contract is an adhesion contract “signed” on line by its customers clicking a “yes” button. Clearwire asks us to believe that the fee it imposes on those who want out of the contract (or who breach the contract) is not intended as a device to ensure *459performance. With all due respect to my…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Blank v. BordenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Chandler v. Doran Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1954
  3. Cellphone Termination Fee CasesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
  4. Bellevue School District No. 405 v. BentleyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1984
  5. Mau v. L.A. Fitness International, LLCDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2010

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API