Imagine you're about to make a contract. Being an experienced businessman, you know contracts sometimes get broken, and not always due to the breaker's fault. Knowing this, you can either risk having to go to court and have a judge decide what the consequences should be (potentially a very expensive option), or you could have the good sense to make what's known as a "reasonable pre-estimate of damages" beforehand, and save both sides the hassle of litigation in the event that things do go wrong.

Why does this make it any more or less moral to break the contract? A contract is just a set of promises, made by two or more sides to each other,* which are intended to be legally binding. The fact that you aren't so naive as to think that nobody would ever break a contract (even if forced to by circumstances) doesn't mean you condone breaking it. Whether you think there's any moral obligation to keep a promise made to a bank is, of course, another matter.

You might as well say that it isn't immoral to kill someone, because there's a pre-arranged penalty for doing so, which means the state is happy for you to choose to commit murder as long as you don't mind paying that penalty.

*In Scots law unilateral gratuitous promises are binding, and you can probably have a unilateral contract as well, but I gather American contract law follows the dirty English and doesn't keep people to their word unless there's consideration.