Marin Tug & Barge, Inc. v. Westport Petroleum
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
The appeal and cross-appeal from the district court’s decision on remand arise out of an admiralty action regarding the contamination of the Marin Tenor, a barge owned by Marin Tug and Barge, Inc. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the record, we recite only the facts necessary to explain our decision.
1. The district court applied the correct legal standard to determine the reasonableness of the liquidated demurrage provision.
Westport and Shell attempt to distinguish (1) examining the reasonable expectations of the parties at the time the contract was made from (2) examining the circumstances existing at the time the contract was made. California law draws no such distinction. See Ridgley v. Topa Thrift & Loan Ass’n., 17 Cal.4th 970 , 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 378 , 953 P.2d 484, 488 (1998) (holding that there must be a reasonable *942 relationship between a liquidated damages clause and the range of actual damages that the parties could have anticipated). Accordingly, this court’s previous memorandum disposition directed consideration of “the parties’ reasonable expectations at the time the contract was entered into.”