Why this result mattered
Functional tie
The principal comparison placed Qwen 3.8 and Claude under concealed A/B labels.
Both answers direct Adrian to concede default, uphold the sole-remedy liquidated-damages clause, allow retention of the $90,000 deposit, tender the $18,000 shortfall, and reject all additional damages and fees. A competent reader following either answer reaches the same $108,000 total exposure and materially identical settlement and litigation position.
Fast audit
Open the underlying record
These links open all four answers, the principal blind judgment, original prompt, and sealed key.
Prompt and sealed key
The key is an audit reference. It was not shown to the contestant systems and did not determine the comparative verdict.
Read the original matter prompt
Question 49: The Deposit After the Missed Closing
Your role
You represent Adrian Cole, the buyer of a residential property in the fictional State of Kepler. Adrian failed to close after his financing contingency expired. The seller seeks to keep the earnest money and recover additional resale loss. Determine the enforceability and exact amount of the liquidated-damages remedy.
Governing law
Assume the following Kepler rules apply:
A liquidated-damages clause is enforceable when, at contract formation, actual loss from breach was difficult to estimate and the stated amount was a reasonable forecast rather than a punishment.
A stated amount not exceeding 10 percent of the purchase price is presumed reasonable for a residential sale when the parties negotiated at arm's length and the seller removed the property from the market.
A clause is not invalid merely because actual damages later prove higher or lower than the forecast. The focus is reasonableness at formation.
When the contract states that liquidated damages are the seller's sole remedy for buyer default, the seller may not also recover actual resale loss, carrying cost, or specific performance.
When the required liquidated amount exceeds the earnest-money deposit, the seller may retain the deposit and recover the stated shortfall if the clause expressly says so.
A financing contingency protects the buyer only if the buyer applies by the stated date, uses diligent efforts, and gives timely termination notice. After the contingency expires without termination, financing failure does not excuse closing.
The seller must mitigate only if seeking actual damages. Mitigation does not reduce an enforceable sole-remedy liquidated amount.
Facts
Adrian agreed to buy a house for $1,800,000. He deposited $90,000. The negotiated contract states:
"If Buyer defaults after expiration or waiver of all contingencies, Seller's sole and exclusive remedy shall be liquidated damages equal to six percent of the Purchase Price. Seller may retain the earnest-money deposit and recover from Buyer any shortfall between the deposit and the liquidated amount. The parties agree that actual damages would be difficult to estimate because of market movement, carrying cost, and lost opportunities."
Adrian's financing contingency required a complete loan application within five days and permitted termination within 20 days if financing was denied. Adrian waited 12 days to apply. His lender denied the loan on day 24. Adrian did not terminate before the contingency expired and failed to close.
The seller removed the property from the market for 55 days. It later sold for $1,620,000 and claims $180,000 in price loss plus $22,000 in carrying expenses. It demands the $90,000 deposit, an additional $112,000 in actual damages, and attorney fees. The contract contains no attorney-fee provision and no other supplied rule authorizes fees.
Adrian argues that the seller's actual loss proves the clause unreasonable and that the deposit alone is the maximum remedy.
Assignment
Analyze:
- Adrian's financing-contingency defense.
- Whether the six-percent clause is an enforceable liquidated-damages provision or a penalty.
- The effect of later actual damages.
- The exact liquidated amount.
- The amount already held and any additional shortfall Adrian owes.
- Whether the seller may recover resale loss, carrying cost, specific performance, or attorney fees.
- The concrete settlement and litigation position Adrian should take.
Read the sealed key
Q49 key (Deposit After Missed Closing)
- Adrian lost the financing contingency by late application and failure to terminate within 20 days. Financing denial on day 24 does not excuse closing. Missed: the defense rests on an expired condition.
- Six percent is within the 10 percent presumption, was negotiated at arm's length, and addressed losses hard to estimate when the property left the market. It is enforceable, not a penalty. Missed: later market loss is used under the wrong time frame.
- Later actual damages do not invalidate or enlarge the agreed sole remedy. The seller cannot stack resale loss or carrying cost. Missed: Adrian is exposed to the actual-loss demand despite the cap.
- Liquidated damages equal 6 percent of $1,800,000 = $108,000. The seller holds $90,000, so Adrian owes an additional $18,000. Missed: the shortfall is calculated as $112,000 or capped incorrectly at the deposit.
- Sole-remedy language bars actual damages and specific performance. No supplied fee basis permits attorney fees. Missed: settlement pays remedies the contract excludes.
- Offer the $18,000 shortfall for a release and dismissal. Litigate only if the seller insists on more, while avoiding an unsupported financing defense. Missed: Adrian spends more defending the one amount clearly due or concedes $202,000.
Direct judge report
The report below is preserved from the Qwen 3.8 versus Claude verdict record.
Read the preserved judge report
Basis. Both answers direct Adrian to concede default, uphold the sole-remedy liquidated-damages clause, allow retention of the $90,000 deposit, tender the $18,000 shortfall, and reject all additional damages and fees. A competent reader following either answer reaches the same $108,000 total exposure and materially identical settlement and litigation position.
[B] rejected: Adrian missed the diligence requirement and his delayed application likely caused the late denial — record lacks facts establishing his overall diligence or causation.
[B] rejected: litigating the contingency invites fee-shifting or bad-faith consequences — record lacks any applicable fee-shifting or bad-faith rule.
[B] rejected: the American-rule default makes fees equally unavailable to Adrian — record supplies only that no provision or rule authorizes the seller’s fees.
[A] rejected: possible interest, court costs, or settlement premium — record lacks any rule or fact supporting those additions.
[A] rejected: seller removed the property from the market after default — record establishes removal for 55 days but not that timing.
Failed candidates. Different characterizations of diligence and denial causation — record support failed.
Failed candidates. Different warnings concerning fees and bad faith — record support failed.
Failed candidates. Declaratory judgment versus judgment on the pleadings as an additional procedural vehicle — concrete consequence failed.
Failed candidates. Conditional interest, costs, or settlement premium versus a strict $18,000 tender — likelihood failed.
Failed candidates. Different wording concerning escrow and release mechanics — concrete consequence failed.
Hard stop. It cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence.
All six pairings
Every pair of the four model answers was judged independently under the same evaluation instrument.
Open the six head-to-head results
| Pairing | Result | Why it mattered | Record |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qwen 3.8 27B vs Claude Opus 5 | Functional tie | Both answers direct Adrian to concede default, uphold the sole-remedy liquidated-damages clause, allow retention of the $90,000 deposit, tender the $18,000 shortfall, and reject all additional damages and fees. | Judge record |
| Qwen 3.8 27B vs DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731 | Functional tie | Both readers would concede Adrian’s default, enforce the sole-remedy clause, permit retention of the $90,000 deposit, tender the $18,000 shortfall, and reject actual damages, specific performance, and attorney fees. | Judge record |
| Qwen 3.8 27B vs Qwen 3.5 27B | Functional tie | Both answers direct Adrian to concede default, accept total liquidated damages of $108,000, allow retention of the $90,000 deposit, and offer the $18,000 shortfall for a release. | Judge record |
| DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731 vs Claude Opus 5 | Functional tie | Both answers place Adrian on the same material path: concede default, enforce the sole-remedy clause, credit the $90,000 deposit, pay the $18,000 shortfall, and reject all additional damages, specific performance, and attorney fees. | Judge record |
| DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731 vs Qwen 3.5 27B | Functional tie | Both answers place Adrian on the same materially correct path: concede default, affirm the enforceable sole-remedy clause, credit the $90,000 deposit toward $108,000, pay only the $18,000 shortfall, and reject actual damages, specific performance, and attorney fees. | Judge record |
| Qwen 3.5 27B vs Claude Opus 5 | Functional tie | Both answers place Adrian on the same materially correct path: concede default, uphold the sole-remedy clause, permit retention of the $90,000 deposit, pay the $18,000 shortfall for total liability of $108,000, and reject all additional damages, specific performance, and attorney fees. | Judge record |
Rejected-point diagnostic
Judge-attributed rejected points for this matter across all six pairings:
| Qwen 3.8 27B | 5 |
|---|---|
| DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731 | 0 |
| Claude Opus 5 | 8 |
| Qwen 3.5 27B | 2 |
This is a review-burden diagnostic, not a universal hallucination measure.