Wassenaar worked for Panos under a three-year contract stating that if the contract were terminated wrongfully by Panos before the end of the three years, he would pay as damages the salary for the remaining time that the contract had to run. After three months, Panos terminated the contract, and Wassenaar sued him for pay for the balance of the contract term. Panos claimed that this amount could not be recovered because the contract provision for the payment was a void penalty. Was this provision valid?

The arrangement given on the agreement among Wassenaar and Panos is substantial. The specific add up to be paid on account of break of an agreement is alluded as exchanged harms and the sum turns into a punishment just when it is obviously nonsensically enormous and random to the conceivable genuine harms that may be supported. Here the sum referenced in the agreement as harms on account of rupture or the illegitimate end of Wasssenaar before the agreement time frame is the compensation for the rest of the time that the agreement needed to run. The sum is a sensible sum as it demands to pay just the rest of the period compensation and is same as the real harms that may be continued. Subsequently the sum goes under exchanged harms and the arrangement is definitely not a void punishment.

The provision was not valid because there was a breach of contract

Explanation:

answer; affirm trail court findings of fact;