Where does the &quot;liquidated&quot; in &quot;liquidated damages&quot; come from? An answer to a recent question mentions that &quot;all the money you have&quot; is not a valid liquidated-damages clause in a contract. The main use of &quot;liquidation&quot; that I'm familiar with is in the context of bankruptcy, where it does indeed mean (roughly) &quot;all the money you have&quot;. (Well, strictly speaking it means converting all your assets to cash, with the implication that you then give all the money you have your creditors.) Are these usages of &quot;liquidated&quot;/&quot;liquidation&quot; related? Or more generally, where does the term &quot;liquidated&quot; in &quot;liquidated damages&quot; come from?
Black's Law Dictionary (5th edition 1979) states that &quot;Liquidated&quot; means Ascertained; determined; fixed; settled; made clear or manifest. This is the sense of the term in which damages are &quot;liquidated&quot; by a liquidated damages term in a contract or statute. The damages are settled by a contractual determine rather than being &quot;unliquidated&quot; (i.e. uncertain or unresolved or undetermined.) The sense of the word meaning sold or reduced to money, is derivative of this prior and more fundamental sense of the word. When assets or an estate are reduced to money their fair market value is fixed or settled. How a word meaning &quot;liquid&quot; came to mean &quot;make clear&quot; when modified is speculative (given what my brief research uncovered), but I think that are some very plausible paths by which that could have happened. According to Oxford Languages: liq·ui·date /ˈlikwəˌdāt/ Origin mid 16th century (in the sense ‘set out (accounts) clearly’): from medieval Latin liquidat- ‘made clear’, from the verb liquidare, from Latin liquidus (see liquid). liquidate (sense 1) was influenced by Italian liquidare and French liquider, liquidate (sense 2) by Russian likvidirovatʹ A second online dictionary source states: liquidate (v.) 1570s, of accounts, &quot;to reduce to order, to set out clearly&quot; (a sense now obsolete), from Late Latin or Medieval Latin liquidatus, past participle of liquidare &quot;to melt, make liquid, make clear, clarify,&quot; from Latin liquidus &quot;fluid, liquid, moist&quot; (see liquid (adj.)). Sense of &quot;clear away&quot; (a debt) first recorded 1755. The meaning &quot;wipe out, kill&quot; is from 1924, possibly from Russian likvidirovat, ultimately from the Latin word. Related: Liquidated; liquidating. English.StackExchange has some answers of essentially the same question that doesn't shed much more light on the matter but one excerpt is notable: The meaning is already present in the Latin liquidus which means both &quot;liquid&quot; and &quot;clear, evident&quot;. This obviously comes from liquids being limpid (transparent). Limpid by the way (another Latin cognate, originally from Oscan origin) gives Spanish limpido and limpiar. Also liquare means &quot;to filter&quot;. So that the idea of transparency and purity is already strongly associated with liquids in Latin.
In the U.S. severance payments are not provided for statutorily, and are rarely made when an employee quits or is fired for cause. However, even when not provided for within contracts it is common to see voluntary severances paid during lay-offs. Furthermore, in the U.S. it is more likely that they would be "laid off" in order to qualify for unemployment insurance. In Pennsylvania one can make claims on the state-run unemployment insurance system only if one is able to work and does not refuse suitable work when offered. If one quits one is not eligible for these payments. Ultimately unemployment claims are born by the employer (since their legally-mandated unemployment insurance premiums are adjusted based on realized claims). So managers with the authority to layoff employees can impose real costs on their companies, both in terms of direct severance payments (which may be optional), and in terms of the inflated unemployment premiums that will hit the company down the road. However, I have never heard of a company attempting to recoup such costs from managers, since such decisions are specifically delegated to managers with hiring/firing authority. It seems much more likely that a manager deemed to have abused the company's purse would be demoted or fired rather than being sued, unless there were some gross fraud involved (e.g., kickbacks).
If the common law applies (i.e. there is no statute that changes it) then it depends on if the item was lost, mislaid or abandoned. The US has statute law dealing with lost money but that is not the question here. Property is generally deemed to have been lost if it is found in a place where the true owner likely did not intend to set it down, and where it is not likely to be found by the true owner. At common law, the finder of a lost item could claim the right to possess the item against any person except the true owner or any previous possessors. Property is generally deemed to have been mislaid or misplaced if it is found in a place where the true owner likely did intend to set it, but then simply forgot to pick it up again. For example, a wallet found in a shop lying on a counter near a cash register will likely be deemed misplaced rather than lost. Under common law principles, the finder of a misplaced object has a duty to turn it over to the owner of the premises, on the theory that the true owner is likely to return to that location to search for his misplaced item. If the true owner does not return within a reasonable time (which varies considerably depending on the circumstances), the property becomes that of the owner of the premises. Property is generally deemed to have been abandoned if it is found in a place where the true owner likely intended to leave it, but is in such a condition that it is apparent that he or she has no intention of returning to claim it. Abandoned property generally becomes the property of whoever should find it and take possession of it first, although some states have enacted statutes under which certain kinds of abandoned property – usually cars, wrecked ships and wrecked aircraft – escheat, meaning that they become the property of the state. For your specifics: If I purchase merchandise in a physical store, and then (accidentally or not) leave the merchandise at the store after I've paid for it, is the store allowed to resell that merchandise to another customer? This would be mislaid property and if they cannot find you and you do not return to claim it after a reasonable time (which would be different for a Mars bar and a Boeing 747) then it is theirs and they can do what they want with it: including sell it to someone else. How does this scenario differ from leaving personal items at the store that I purchased elsewhere? It doesn't.
This is complicated. This is state dependent, and as of time of writing, you haven't disclosed what is the relevant state. This is something you should hire/retain a (divorce) lawyer, and discuss with them. The law can be messy; divorces are always messy. The answer is the most common answer in law: it depends, on specific facts. See above, get a lawyer. The first question is &quot;is the money in this investment account a shared asset that I have any claim to&quot;. The answer is &quot;it depends&quot;. What state are you in, and where did this money come from? Depending on various factors, the answer might very well be &quot;no&quot;, in which case, this money (and it's loss) may not affect you at all. If you do have some claim to this money, then it gets even more complicated. &quot;Can this asset be retrieved in a court proceeding and say that he was squandering money?&quot; Maybe, kinda. Technically no (because of the way you phrased that). I'll explain. In a divorce, &quot;shared&quot; assets are divided equitably (Note &quot;equitably&quot; does NOT mean &quot;equally&quot;) based on numerous factors, often on a case-by-case basis, and which factors depend on the state. (Therefore, the lawyer you retain should be licensed in the state you/your husband are filing for divorce in). Before your divorce, both sides have (in general) the right to use shared property. They do not have the right to intentionally damage or destroy said property. One complication/grey area is normal use that degrades or damages the value of said property. For example, imagine a classic sports car. Many people drive them for fun; this is normal use. On the other hand, using a classic sports car decreases the value. Is using the sports car unreasonable damage? This is a fact based determination to be made based on specifics. Can this asset be retrieved in a court proceeding [if I] say that he was squandering money? (correction to what I think think you meant). Maybe, but probably not. You can say whatever you want in court, but what matters is what you can prove, as you are the bearing the burden of proof due to making the accusation (and you must prove it to the standard required by the court in your case for your particular motion/accusation, which might be the standard of &quot;the balance of probabilities/more likely than not&quot; or &quot;clear and convincing evidence&quot;, or something else; it's complicated, fact dependent and state dependent, so get a lawyer). You don't need to prove that he lost money. If he was day trading before, the fact that he was day trading after the separation is not held against him; day trading is risky, therefore you have to prove that he intentionally lost money (and, potentially, that he intentionally lost money to deny money to you in the divorce, as opposed to e.g. tax loss harvesting). I would recommend hiring a divorce lawyer and discussing it with them.
It first depends on what state you are dealing with. This expression shows up in standard forms in Georgia, where it is not defined. You can read the associated statutes (Georgia Code, Title 53) especially the definitions, and it won't tell you. The probate court rules also don't tell you. So in Georgia, it would be &quot;what a reasonable person would conclude&quot; (good luck there). Searching for legal blogs that might give a hint, this article refers to &quot;Significant assets that are solely titled to the decedent- property, automobiles, boats, homes&quot;, which seems obvious – they don't suggest a lower value, because that is not legally determined and they don't want to get in trouble for advising that $1,000 (or $500) is &quot;an insignificant value&quot;. The purpose of the form is to put beneficiaries on notice as to what is at stake, and for purposes of that form, it is an estimate, not a binding promise. You have pretty much identified the indeterminacy of the law (in Georgia).
You are deeply confused, probably by the blogs of a conspiracy theorist (perhaps discussing the Sovereign Citizen Movement mentioned in the comments), whom it would be helpful for you to reference. In fact, people with and without lawyers claim common law rights in the ordinary courts of the UK every day, in the lion's share of civil lawsuits. For example: There is a common law right to sue for damages when someone breaches a contract by not paying a bill that they owe. A defendant, meanwhile, has a common law right to defend against such a suit on grounds, for example, that the debt has been paid or that the debt is not owed because there was no agreement to pay in the first place. The substantive right of an owner of real property to evict a tenant who breaches a lease arises at common law, even though statutes spell out the process for enforcing that right. Furthermore, the way that ownership of real property is established (i.e. through a chain of title involving purchases by deeds) likewise arises at common law. The defendant meanwhile has a common law defense to a claim for rent for the remainder of the period in a lease after an eviction for failure of the landlord to mitigate damages if the landlord does not make a reasonable effort to find a new tenant. The right to sue someone who negligently caused an accident that injured you is a common law right.
Yes The airline is entitled to recover what the passenger cost it - that’s how damages work. If it’s successful in its legal pursuit of the passenger it’s also entitled to legal costs (generally, legal costs are complicated). This can either be the actual amount or a genuine pre-estimate of that amount in the contract, called a liquidated damages amount. Liquidated damages do not have to be accurate in the particular circumstances but they must be a reasonable expectation of what an average breach would cost the airline. Too large and they risk being a penalty and unenforceable - only governments can punish.
You're missing some pretty important details in describing the facts of this case. The most important of which is: What were the agreed terms upon which Alice obtained possession of the car prior to paying? Your description says: Alice takes the car and doesn't pay. If that's literally true, then this case is both criminal theft and the tort of conversion — not breach of contract. Since the remainder of your question references a breach of contract, then I have to conclude that the fact as you stated it is not literally correct and there is some important missing detail about the terms upon which Alice was in possession of the car when she crashed it. So, I will have to invent some scenarios that would fit two other facts you describe: The jury awarded Bob $5,000. The jury found Alice to be in breach of contract. The following are the scenarios I can think of that would match the facts (as I understand them and speculated where important details are missing from the question). Maybe this is a small claims court and the damages are capped at $5,000? I never heard of a jury trial in small claims court but I guess it could be possible. Or maybe it was actually a judge and use of the term jury was careless or otherwise inaccurate? Maybe the terms under which Alice was in possession of the car when she crashed it put the parties in position where they effectively shared liability or risk of damage to the car? Like maybe Bob (or both parties) was/were required to carry insurance on the car while Alice was "test driving" it. I only use the term "test driving" as a placeholder for whatever she was doing with the car prior to paying for it which is left unclear by the question. Maybe Bob was found to have contributed to the breach of contract by something he did or didn't do. Similar to the above speculation about insurance. All this would be much easier to analyze if we knew how and under what terms Alice came to possess the car. Maybe there was only $5k of damage done to the car? Or, alternatively, the car was only found to be worth $5k and, for whatever reason (again, which we can not fully analyze given only the partial set of facts presented) the liquidated value of the car was the basis for the damage award and not the contracted price. (Consistent with @jimsug's comment.) I can easily imagine a scenario where Bob and Alice are close friends or family so the entire transaction is handled very loosely and informally and Bob let's Alice drive the vehicle while she is gathering the money to pay him. In this case, the jury might decide Bob shares the liability with Alice since the terms of the sales contract did not transfer the risk of liability to Alice during the time she was driving prior to payment.