This comment concludes that "no damage" clauses should not be enforced because they are generally imposed without genuine bargaining and they tend to work oppressive results on a contractor by subjecting it to a risk of substantial and unforeseeable liability for damages arising from delays attributable to the owner. An analogy to the law of liquidated damages provides a useful illustration of the type of inequity which is promoted by enforcing "no damage" provisions, as well as a doctrinal basis for holding such clauses invalid.
Douglas S. Oles,
"No Damage" Clauses in Construction Contracts: A Critique,
53 Wash. L. Rev.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol53/iss3/5