simple breach of contract claim in Connecticut

1999"A misrepresentation can constitute an aggravating circumstance that would allow a simple breach of contract claim to be treated as a CUTPA violation; it would in effect be a deceptive act." Designs on Stone, Inc. v. John Brennan Construction Co., Inc. , Superior Court, judicial district of Ansonia-Milford at Milford, Docket No. 059997 (April 9, 1998, Corradino, J. ) ( 21 Conn. L.

1998"A misrepresentation can constitute an aggravating circumstance that would allow a simple breach of contract claim to be treated as a CUTPA violation; it would in effect be a deceptive act." Designs on Stone, Inc. v. John Brennan Construction Co., Inc. , Superior Court, judicial district of Ansonia-Milford at Milford, Docket No. 59997 (April 9, 1998) ( 21 Conn. L.

2000"A simple breach of contract even if intentional, does not amount to a violation of the Act; a [claimant] must show substantial aggravating circumstances attending the breach to recover under the Act." Emlee Equipment Leasing Corp. v. Waterbury Transmission, Inc. , 41 Conn. Sup. 575 , 580 , 595 A.2d 951 (1991), rev'd on other grounds, 31 Conn. App. 455 , 626 A.2d 307 (1993); see also Phillips Industrial Service Corp v. Connecticut Light Power Co. , Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven at New Haven, Docket No. 409665 (March 22, 1999, Levin, J. ). "[A] misrepresentation can constitute

2000"A simple breach of contract even if intentional, does not amount to a violation of the Act; a [claimant] must show substantial aggravating circumstances attending the breach to recover under the Act." Emlee Equipment Leasing Corp. v. Waterbury Transmission, Inc. , 41 Conn. Sup. 575 , 580 , 595 A.2d 951 (1991), rev'd on other grounds, 31 Conn. App. 455 , 626 A.2d 307 (1993); see also Phillips Industrial Service Corp v. Connecticut Light Power Co. , Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven at New Haven, Docket No. 409665 (March 22, 1999, Levin, J. ). "[A] misrepresentation can constitute

2003Alternatively, citing Davis v. Margolis, 215 Conn. 408 , 576 A.2d 489 (1990), the plaintiffs argue that even if expert testimony ordinarily would be required in a case such as this, such testimony was not required here because “there [was] present such an obvious and gross want of care and skill that the neglect is clear even to a lay-person.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 416 n.6.

2003Alternatively, citing Davis v. Margolis, 215 Conn. 408 , 576 A.2d 489 (1990), the plaintiffs argue that even if expert testimony ordinarily would be required in a case such as this, such testimony was not required here because “there [was] present such an obvious and gross want of care and skill that the neglect is clear even to a lay-person.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 416 n.6.

2000CT Page 11505 Taking the allegations at their most favorable, she simply failed to provide that care and concern she previously promised — this is nothing more than a simple breach of contract claim, cf. United Roasters. et al v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. , 649 F.2d 985 , 992 (CA4, 1981). (b) Can aggravating circumstances be found here through application of the principles as set forth in the so-called Cigarette Rule adopted by our court in Cheshire Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Montes , 223 Conn. 80 , 105 (1992).

2000"A simple breach of contract even if intentional, does not amount to a violation of the Act; a [claimant] must show substantial aggravating circumstances attending the breach to recover under the Act." Emlee Equipment Leasing Corp. v. Waterbury Transmission, Inc. , 41 Conn. Sup. 575 , 580 , 595 A.2d 951 (1991), rev'd on other grounds, 31 Conn. App. 455 , 626 A.2d 307 (1993); see also Phillips Industrial Service Corp v. Connecticut Light Power Co. , Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven at New Haven, Docket No. 409665 (March 22, 1999, Levin, J. ). "[A] misrepresentation can constitute

2000"A simple breach of contract even if intentional, does not amount to a violation of the Act; a [claimant] must show substantial aggravating circumstances attending the breach to recover under the Act." Emlee Equipment Leasing Corp. v. Waterbury Transmission, Inc. , 41 Conn. Sup. 575 , 580 , 595 A.2d 951 (1991), rev'd on other grounds, 31 Conn. App. 455 , 626 A.2d 307 (1993); see also Phillips Industrial Service Corp v. Connecticut Light Power Co. , Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven at New Haven, Docket No. 409665 (March 22, 1999, Levin, J. ). "[A] misrepresentation can constitute

2000CT Page 11505 Taking the allegations at their most favorable, she simply failed to provide that care and concern she previously promised — this is nothing more than a simple breach of contract claim, cf. United Roasters. et al v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. , 649 F.2d 985 , 992 (CA4, 1981). (b) Can aggravating circumstances be found here through application of the principles as set forth in the so-called Cigarette Rule adopted by our court in Cheshire Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Montes , 223 Conn. 80 , 105 (1992).

1999Of course, as Judge Corradino has observed, "a `misrepresentation' can constitute an aggravating circumstance that would allow a simple breach of contract claim to be treated as a CUTPA violation; [when] it would in effect be a deceptive act, cf CNF Constructors, Inc. v. Culligan Water Conditioning Co., supra [ 8 C.S.C.R. 1057 (1993], dicta in Production Equipment Co. v. Blakeslee Arpaia Chapman, Inc., supra [ 15 Conn. L.

1998A. Count Two In the second count of the revised complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the actions of the defendants "were unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce in violation of [CUTPA]." The defendants state that the second count fails to state a claim for a CUTPA violation because "(1) the count is based on a simple breach of contract claim; (2) it fails to properly plead a violation of the Home Solicitation CT Page 14207 Sales Act ("HSSA"); (3) the count fails to allege conduct constituting unfair or deceptive trade practices; and (4) it fails to allege ei

1998A. Count Two In the second count of the revised complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the actions of the defendants "were unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce in violation of [CUTPA]." The defendants state that the second count fails to state a claim for a CUTPA violation because "(1) the count is based on a simple breach of contract claim; (2) it fails to properly plead a violation of the Home Solicitation CT Page 14207 Sales Act ("HSSA"); (3) the count fails to allege conduct constituting unfair or deceptive trade practices; and (4) it fails to allege ei

1996"Several trial court decisions have held that an ordinary breach of contract does not give rise to a CUTPA claim." Robert S. Weiss Co. v. Medspan, Superior Court, judicial district of New CT Page 5284-YY Haven, Docket No. 0311255 (July 13, 1993, Gray, J., 8 CSCR 835 , 835 ).

1996Kings Lane, therefore, contends that in Counts Two, Four, Six, Nine, and Eleven it "alleges more than a simple breach of contract claim." In support of this argument, Kings Lane relies on CNF Constructors v. Culligan Water Conditioning Co., Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven at Meriden, Docket No. 0242302 (September 9, 1993, Blue, J., 8 CSCR 1057 ).

1995Petrovich v. Board of Education, 189 Conn. 585 , 589 (1983); Light v. Board of Education, 170 Conn. 35 , 41 (1975); Milford Education Association v. Board of Education, 167 Conn. 513 , 520 (1975); New Haven Water Co. v. New Haven, 131 Conn. 456 , 464 (1944).

1995Petrovich v. Board of Education, 189 Conn. 585 , 589 (1983); Light v. Board of Education, 170 Conn. 35 , 41 (1975); Milford Education Association v. Board of Education, 167 Conn. 513 , 520 (1975); New Haven Water Co. v. New Haven, 131 Conn. 456 , 464 (1944).

1995Petrovich v. Board of Education, 189 Conn. 585 , 589 (1983); Light v. Board of Education, 170 Conn. 35 , 41 (1975); Milford Education Association v. Board of Education, 167 Conn. 513 , 520 (1975); New Haven Water Co. v. New Haven, 131 Conn. 456 , 464 (1944).

1995Petrovich v. Board of Education, 189 Conn. 585 , 589 (1983); Light v. Board of Education, 170 Conn. 35 , 41 (1975); Milford Education Association v. Board of Education, 167 Conn. 513 , 520 (1975); New Haven Water Co. v. New Haven, 131 Conn. 456 , 464 (1944).