# Arrowhead Sch. Dist. 75, Park Co. v. Klyap

> Montana Supreme Court · October 27, 2003 · 318 Mont. 103

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9511003

## Case

- **Full name:** ARROWHEAD SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 75, PARK COUNTY, MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES A. KLYAP, JR., Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** Montana Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 27, 2003
- **Citations:** 318 Mont. 103; 79 P.3d 250; 2003 MT 294
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Tucker
- **Judges:** James C. Nelson
- **Cited by:** 49 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9511003

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that the two-pronged approach can be "cireular and subjective"

## Opinion text

DISTRICT COURT JUDGE LOREN TUCKER,
specially concurring.
¶74 I concur in the result reached by the Court but not in all of the reasoning.
¶75 By statute, liquidated damages are authorized in situations in which actual damages are difficult to determine. The liquidated damages provision is designed to bring certainty to uncertain circumstances. The parties to the contract are in the best position to make that determination. Neither a contracting party nor the Court should be allowed to recreate uncertainty after the fact by second guessing the agreed terms.
¶76 Whether the agreement is a contract of adhesion is an issue separate from whether the parties have agreed to liquidated damages. This issue need not be analyzed in every liquidated damages case. It should be considered only when raised by the pleadings.
¶77 For these reasons, I concur with the result reached by the majority.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9511003. Public record. Not legal advice.