Hi David,

I do a lot of work with clients seeking liquidated damages in collection cases. Liquidated damages cases are generally contract breach cases. I have a number of these cases pending now in both the Superior Court and in arbitration. I am surprised to see this theory of damages applied in privacy invasion cases. Liquidated damages is generally not a theory of computation of damages in tort cases. I will have to follow this case. Usually recovery requires an agreement between the parties to liquidate.
Thank you for the case citation. This is a wrinkle in the law that I had not seen before.

In Connecticut the rule is that to recover for liquidated damages (1) the parties must have intended to liquidate damages at the outset, (2) the amount liquidated must not be inordinantly out of proportion to the amount of actual damages recoverable (in other words not a penalty), and  (3) the amount of the damages sought must be uncertain or difficult to determine at the time the parties agreed to liquidate the damages. In the event that the plaintiff is unable to satisfy any one of the three points of this test, the court allows him to seek actual damages in the alternative in an amount that he is able to prove. Consequently, when I sue a defendant in a contract action  I normally include three counts in the complaint (1) liquidated damages (if provided by contract) , (2) actual damages for contract breach and (3) unjust enrichment for the reasonable value of the plaintiff's services/expenses in the event that the contract breach case fails for some technicality.

I probably should have been a little more clear in my above posting.
The case you have cited above I believe relates to the computation of damages. What I was getting at with my above posting was aggrievement of the plaintiff by the defendant's conduct.  There was an interesting case involving the Sierra Club several years ago in which standing to sue was the issue. The Sierra Club was attempting to preserve a wilderness location for the camping enjoyment of its members. However, it was not able show that any of their members routinely used the location. As such it had not been aggrieved, and therefore had no standing to enforce its claim. 

Sorry. Did not mean to be confusing in the earlier post.

Robert, you are probably studying the newest tort cases in law school. Have you run accross this yet in your torts class? If so, I would be interested in learning about it. It may be helpful in a case I am working on.