to have ARPE issue the use permit. Therefore, the court holds that Defendants did not breach the contract. C. COUNTERCLAIM: RENOVATION EXPENSES AND PLAINTIFFS’ UTILITY BILLS Plaintiffs and Defendants both requested summary judgment in their favor as to their counterclaim. There being no issue of material fact as to this issue, the court rules on the merits, dismissing Defendants’ counterclaim as to the renovation expenses and granting as to the utility bills. The contract contained a liquidated damages clause which Defendants accept as valid. Given that the parties do not argue to the contrary, the court assumes that the clause is not grossly unreasonable and, therefore, enforceable. See P.R. Laws Ann., tit. 31 §§ 3131, 3133; Gil v. U.R.H.C., 109 P.R. Dec. 551, 1980 WL 138561 (1980) (<HOLDING>). Pursuant to the contract, this, clause came
recognizing that due on sale clauses are enforceable in texas holding that penalty clauses are enforceable unless they are found to be grossly unreasonable holding enforceable forum selection clauses in arbitration agreements holding that acceleration clauses are quite common and are generally enforceable according to their terms holding that relief under rule 60b6 is not available unless the other clauses 1 through 5 are inapplicable