plz answer it briefly and I'll rate it! thanks

Case Analysis 19.2 Case Analysis 19.2 on pg. 344, Kent State University v Ford, and answer the questions below! 1. Kent State University sued Ford to enforce the liquidated damage clause of his contract. Before analyzing this case, it is important to understand the requirements for enforcing a Liquidated Damage clause. What are the requirements for enforcing a Liquidated Damage clause? 2. What facts did the Court of Appeals list to decide if the damages would have been difficult to determine? 3. What facts did the Court of Appeals list to decide if the damages were reasonable? 4. Many contracts for the purchase of Real Estate include Liquidated Damage provisions. That is, the buyer provides a nonrefundable 10% or 20% deposit . If the buyer breaches the contract (refuses or is unable to complete the sale) the buyer loses their deposit. The Standard Damages for when a buyer breaches a real estate contract is the Difference in Price between the Contract Price and the Market Price (what the house would have sold for) at the time of breach. WHY would a seller prefer a Liquidated Damage clause in the real estate contract rather than waiting to see what the property could sell for it the buyer breaches the contract? Liquidated damages provisions usually are enforce- able. In contrast, if a court finds that a provision calls for a penalty, the agreement as to the amount will not be enforced. Recovery will be limited to actual damages. Enforceability To determine if a particular provision is for liquidated damages or for a penalty, a court must answer two questions: 1. When the contract was entered into, was it apparent that damages would be difficult to estimate in the cvent of a breach? 2. Was the amount set as damages a reasonable estimate and not excessive! If the answers to both questions are yes, the provision normally will be enforced. If either answer is no, the pro vision usually will not be enforced In the following Sporligh Gae, the court had to decide whether a cause in a contract was an enforccable liqui dated damages provision or an enenforceable penalty 7. Awww mm. Satan Mo Spotlight on Liquidated Damages Case 19.2 Kent State University v. Ford Court of Appeals of the Cry 2015, NEM0015 Background and Facts Gereford signed a year contract with Kent State University in Ohio to work as the head coach for the men's basketball team. The contract provided that Ford quit before the end of them we would puy liquidated damages to the school The amount was to equal his salary (5300,000) multiplied by the number of years remaining on the contract Ling Kennedy Kent State's atletic director, told Ford that the contract would be renegotiated within a few year Four years before the contract expired, however, ford left Kent State and began to coach for Bradley University at an annual salary of $700,000. Kent State filed a suit in an Ohio state court against ford, alleging breach of contract. The court enforced the liquidated damage cause and inwarded the university 31.2 million Ford approving that the liquidated damage cause insert contract was an enorcable 344 998 > In the Language of the Court Diane V. GRENDELL I udge] . The parties agreed on an amount of damages, stated in clear terms in Ford's employment contract, liis apparent such damages were difficult, if no imposible to determine.** The departure of a university's head basketball coach may result in a decrease in ticket sales, impact the ability to successfully recruit players and community support for the team, and require a search for both a new coach and additional coaching staff. Many of these damages cannot be easily measured or proven. This is especially mie given the nature of how much factors may change over the course of different coaches tenures with a sports program or team. [Emphasis added.) ... ... Kennedy statements to Ford that the contract would be renegotiated within a few years made it clear that Kent State desired Ford to have long term employment, which was necessary to establish the stability in the program that would benefic recruitment, retention of assistant coaching staff and community participation and involvement. The breach of the contract impacted all of these areas Regarding the alleged unreasonableness of the damages, 1 based on the record, we find that the damages were reasonable * Finding a coach of a similar skill and experience level as Ford, which was gained based partially on the investment of Kent State in his development would have an increased cost. This is evident from the fact that Ford was able to more than double his yearly salary when hired by Bradley University. The salary Ford earned a Bradley shows the loss of market value in coaching experienced by Kent State. $400,000 per year, for four years. Although this may not have been known at the time the contract was executed, it could have been anticipated, and was presumably why Kent State AR