Sprayfoam, Inc. v. Durant's Rental Centers, Inc., 468 A.2d 951 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
Sprayfoam, Inc. v. Durant's Rental Centers, Inc., 468 A.2d 951 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1990 · …cutpa is a consumer protection statute intended to provide an individual with an action more flexible and a remedy more complete than does common law. ✓
40 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State Ex Rel. Spaeth v. Eddy Furniture Co. (nd, 1986-05-13)
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State Ex Rel. Spaeth v. Eddy Furniture Co.
N.D. · 1986 · confidence medium
E.g., State v. First National Bank of Anchorage, 660 P.2d 406, 412 (Alaska 1982); Sprayfoam, Inc. v. Durant’s Rental Centers, Inc., 39 Conn. Supp. 78 , -, 468 A.2d 951, 953 (Super.Ct.1983); Barry v. Arrow Pontiac, Inc., 100 N.J. 57, 69 , 494 A.2d 804, 811 (1985); Joseph v. PPG Industries, Inc., 674 S.W.2d 862, 865 (Tex.Ct.App.1984).
discussed Cited "see" Wilson v. Firemen's Fund Insurance (2×)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sprayfoam, Inc. v. Durant’s Rental Centers, Inc., 39 Conn. Sup. 78, 79 , 468 A.2d 951 (1983).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Kane v. Neveleff, No. Cv 00-0439308 S (Jul. 11, 2002) (2×)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 2002 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
Reg. 59 , 614, [and] 59, 635 (1978).' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 569 n. 15. `Thus a violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice; see, e.g., Sprayfoam, Inc. v. Durant's Rental Centers, Inc ., 39 Conn. Sup. 78 , 468 A.2d 951 (1983); or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Palmer v. Bristol Mortgage Corporation, No. Cv 95-0370674-S (Mar. 13, 1996) (2×)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 1996 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
"Thus a violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice; see, e.g., Sprayfoam, Inc. v. Durant's Rental Centers, Inc. 39 Conn. Sup. 78 , 468 A.2d 951 (1983); or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Weglarz v. Plaza Ford, No. Cv-94-0071519-S (Aug. 30, 1995) (2×)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 1995 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
Thus a violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice; see, e.g., Sprayfoam, Inc. v. Durant's Rental Centers Inc., 39 Conn. Sup. 78 , 468 A.2d 951 (1983); or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Shay v. Gallagher, No. Cv 93-0302341 (Jan. 23, 1995) (2×)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 1995 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
Thus a violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice; see, e.g., Sprayfoam, Inc. v. Durant's Rental Centers, Inc., 39 Conn. Sup. 78 , 468 A.2d 951 (1983); or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jacobs v. Healey Ford-Subaru, Inc. (2×)
Conn. · 1995 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
Thus a violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice; see, e.g., Sprayfoam, Inc. v. Durant’s Rental Centers, Inc., 39 Conn. Sup. 78 , 468 A.2d 951 (1983); or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Normand Josef Enterprises, Inc. v. Connecticut National Bank (2×)
Conn. · 1994 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
Reg. 59,614 , [and] 59,635 (1978).’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 569 n.15. ‘Thus a violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice; see, e.g., Sprayfoam, Inc. v. Durant’s Rental Centers, Inc., 39 Conn. Sup. 78 , 468 A.2d 951 (1983); or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Donarumo v. Nappe, No. 281235 (May 17, 1994)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 1994 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
Thus, a violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice; see e.g., Sprayfoam, Inc. v. Durant's Rental Centers, Inc. , 39 Conn. Sup. 78 , CT Page 5291 4668 A.2d 951 (1983); or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Zoological Research v. Crabtree-Haas, No. Cv870238016s (Sep. 16, 1992) (2×)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 1992 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
"Thus a violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice; see, e.g., Sprayfoam, Inc. v. Durant's Rental Centers, Inc., 39 Conn. Sup. 78 , 468 A.2d 951 (1983); or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Cheshire Mortgage Service, Inc. v. Montes (2×)
Conn. · 1992 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
“Thus a violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice; see, e.g., Sprayfoam, Inc. v. Durant’s Rental Centers, Inc., 39 Conn. Sup. 78 , 468 A.2d 951 (1983); or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Gardocki v. Goldring Home Inspections, Inc., No. 315035 (Oct. 11, 1991) (2×)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 1991 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
In Web Press, supra, the Connecticut Supreme Court has summarized the criteria for finding a CUTPA violation as follows: "[t]hus a violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice; see, e.g., Spray Foam, Inc. v. Durant's Rental Centers, Inc., 39 Conn. Sup. 78 , 468 A.2d 951 (1983), or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." White v. O'rourke, No. 24 86 25 (Jul. 20, 1990) (2×)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 1990 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
"Thus, a CUTPA violation may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice; see, e.g., Sprayfoam, Inc. v. Durant's Rental Centers, Inc., 39 Conn. Sup. 78 , 468 A.2d 951 (1983); or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy." Id.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Daddona v. Liberty Mobile Home Sales, Inc. (2×)
Conn. · 1988 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
Thus, a violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice; see, e.g., Sprayfoam, Inc. v. Durant’s Rental Centers, Inc., 39 Conn. Sup. 78 , 468 A.2d 951 (1983); or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy.” Web Press Services Corporation v. New London Motors, Inc., 203 Conn. 342, 355 , 525 A.2d 57 (1987).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Web Press Services Corp. v. New London Motors, Inc. (2×)
Conn. · 1987 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
Thus, a violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice; see, e.g., Sprayfoam, Inc. v. Durant’s Rental Centers, Inc., 39 Conn. Sup. 78 , 468 A.2d 951 (1983); or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Sprayfoam, Inc., Et Al.
v.
Durant’s Rental Centers, Inc.
File 279940.
Connecticut Superior Court.
Nov 23, 1983.
468 A.2d 951
Matzkin, Krug Danen, for the plaintiffs. Gerald Hecht, for the defendant.
Bieluch.
Cited by 23 opinions  |  Published
Bieluch, J.

This action arises out of a dispute over the terms of a rental agreement entered into by the parties. The named plaintiff, a corporation, rented certain equipment from the defendant. As part of the rental agreement the named plaintiff was required to provide a blank charge card (VISA) slip as security for the equipment. A dispute arose over the rental charge. The named plaintiff allegedly paid the undisputed amount, provided the disputed balance would be “discussed” by the parties. The defendant allegedly agreed. Subsequently, without notice to the named plaintiff, the defendant posted a charge against the VISA account equal to the disputed amount, $900.

The plaintiffs set forth three counts in their complaint: the first two counts allege unfair trade practices by the defendant and the third count alleges a breach of implied warranty and merchantability and fitness[*79] for a particular purpose. The defendant has moved to strike the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. A motion to strike is used to challenge the legal sufficiency of a pleading. Alarm Applications Co. v. Simsbury Volunteer Fire Co., 179 Conn. 541, 545, 427 A. 2d 822 (1980).

The plaintiffs allege in their first count a violation of Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, General Statutes §§ 42-110a through 42-110q inclusive (CUTPA). They claim that the defendant represented that “the sole purpose of requiring a credit card slip to be signed in blank was to provide Durant’s with substitution for cash security for the equipment rented.”

CUTPA is a consumer protection statute intended to provide an individual with an action more flexible and a remedy more complete than does the common law. The act is remedial in nature and is to be liberally construed. General Statutes § 42-110b (d); Murphy v. McNamara, 36 Conn. Sup. 183, 188, 416 A.2d 170 (1979). In McNamara, the court adopted (p. 189) the following United States Supreme Court guidelines in determining what constitutes an unfair trade practice: “(1) [W]hether the practice, without necessarily having been previously considered unlawful, offends public policy as it has been established by statutes, the common law, or otherwise . . . (2) whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; (3) whether it causes substantial injury to consumers.”

The court finds that the defendant’s alleged act comes within the McNamara definition of an unfair trade practice. In a motion to strike, the court construes the pleading in the manner most favorable to the pleader. Therrien v. Safeguard Mfg. Co., 180 Conn. 91, 93, 429 A.2d 808 (1980).

In its motion, the defendant has moved to strike the plaintiffs’ entire complaint. When a motion to strike[*80] attacks the whole pleading, it is addressed to all causes of action or defenses contained therein. Such a motion to strike fails if it does not reach all of the causes of action or defenses pleaded. The plaintiffs have alleged a sufficient cause of action under CUTPA.

The motion to strike is denied.