Discusses the uses and problems associated with liquidated damages clauses. Notes the popularity of such clauses with both employer and contractor as the latter wants to limit exposure and the building owner often finds it attractive to agree a figure for delay in advance, so that the effort of proving it at a later date is reduced. Comments on how the courts are often wary of liquidated damage clauses and this has led to a rule that the clause will not be enforced in certain circumstances, to the benefit of contractors who had argued that they are unenforceable. Shows how these clauses are still enforceable with the aid of various recent rulings including "Philips Hong Kong Ltd v Attorney General of Hong Kong" (PC 9 February 1993, Times 15 Febraury 1993). Here a judge argued that to strike out a liquidated damage clause was a blatant interference with freedom of contract.