§ 74 declares the law on liability for breach of contract if compensation is determined in advance by agreement of the parties or if a provision exists as a penalty. However, the application of the decree is not limited to cases where the injured party as a claimant seeks compensation. The article does not grant any particular advantage to any party; It simply declares by law that, notwithstanding any provision of the contract that predetermines damages or provides for the forfeiture of property by penalty, the court will only award the injured party reasonable compensation not exceeding the said amount or the specified penalty. The jurisdiction of the court is not determined by the incidental fact that the defaulting party is a plaintiff or defendant in an action. The use of the phrase “to be obtained from the party who has breached the contract” does not presuppose that the jurisdiction of the court to adjust the amounts paid by the defaulting party cannot be exercised in dealing with the plaintiff`s claim for breach of contract. In any event, the court must assess the appropriate compensation to which the plaintiff is entitled from the defendant in the event of a breach. Such compensation shall be determined taking into account the conditions existing at the time of the infringement. “Due to the non-supply of scrap, he could have purchased the iron scrap on the market at the same controlled price and at similar ancillary costs. This means that he could not pay a higher price than the price he had to pay to the defendant and that he could therefore not have suffered any prejudice as a result of the defendant`s failure. The actual prejudice that, according to the appellant, he had suffered as a result of the respondent`s failure was caused by his contract for the sale of 200 tonnes of scrap metal for export to the exporting company. It can be assumed that, as already mentioned, the market price of scrap for export on January 30, 1953 was the price paid by the Export Corporation that day for the purchase of scrap metal. Given that the parties did not know at the time of the conclusion of the contract in July 1952 and could not have known that the scrap would eventually be sold by the appellant to the Export Corporation, the parties could not know to what extent the damage was likely that the appellant had actually suffered as a result of the respondent`s failure to perform the contract […].