within days of the first buyer’s default, at about the same price, and without complicating factors which make the actual damages difficult to calculate with precision.” Lynch v. Andrew, 20 Mass. App. Ct. 623, 628 (1985). Were our inquiry limited to the circumstances obtaining at the time the parties entered into their agreement, we would permit the sellers to retain the deposit, amounting to five percent of the purchase price. Not only were the potential damages from a breach by the buyers, possibly occurring up to four months later, difficult to predict at the time of contracting, but the amount of the deposit (five percent of the purchase price) was within the ordinary range for a real estate purchase and sale agreement. See Schrenko v. Regnante, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 282, 284 (1989) (<HOLDING>); 1 Residential Real Estate Basics at 7 (MCLE
recognizing a 44 percent liquidated damages clause as routine and reasonable holding that because liquidated damages under the adea are punitive in nature a jurys award of state punitive damages and adea liquidated damages constitutes a double recovery and therefore reducing the total recovery by the amount of the liquidated damages award recognizing that liquidated damages under the flsa  are compensation not a penalty or punishment  holding that the validity of a liquidated damages clause is a question of law and reviewing it without deference holding that liquidated damages under the adea are intended to punish and deter while contrasting them to the legislative purpose of liquidated damages under the fsla