implied contract claim in Connecticut

2001"The plaintiff's belief that he had an employment contract with the defendant, without more, is insufficient to sustain an implied contract claim." Reynolds v. Chrysler First Commercial Corp ., 40 Conn. App. 725 , 732 , 673 A.2d 573 , cert. denied, 237 Conn. 913 , 675 A.2d 885 (1996).

2001"The plaintiff's belief that he had an employment contract with the defendant, without more, is insufficient to sustain an implied contract claim." Reynolds v. Chrysler First Commercial Corp ., 40 Conn. App. 725 , 732 , 673 A.2d 573 , cert. denied, 237 Conn. 913 , 675 A.2d 885 (1996).

2001"The plaintiff's belief that he had an employment contract with the defendant, without more, is insufficient to sustain an implied contract claim." Reynolds v. Chrysler First Commercial Corp ., 40 Conn. App. 725 , 732 , 673 A.2d 573 , cert. denied, 237 Conn. 913 , 675 A.2d 885 (1996).

2001"The plaintiff's belief that he had an employment contract with the defendant, without more, is insufficient to sustain an implied contract claim." Reynolds v. Chrysler First Commercial Corp ., 40 Conn. App. 725 , 732 , 673 A.2d 573 , cert. denied, 237 Conn. 913 , 675 A.2d 885 (1996).

2000Denied, 237 Conn. 913 , 675 A.2d 885 (1996). "[I]n order to allege the existence of an implied contract between the parties, the plaintiff must allege facts that support her claim that the employer agreed, either by words or conduct, to undertake a contractual commitment. . . ." Sherman v. Sedgwick James of Connecticut, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 326150 (February 10, 1997, Melville, J. ), citing Torosyan v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., supra, 234 Conn. 15 .

2000Denied, 237 Conn. 913 , 675 A.2d 885 (1996). "[I]n order to allege the existence of an implied contract between the parties, the plaintiff must allege facts that support her claim that the employer agreed, either by words or conduct, to undertake a contractual commitment. . . ." Sherman v. Sedgwick James of Connecticut, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 326150 (February 10, 1997, Melville, J. ), citing Torosyan v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., supra, 234 Conn. 15 .

1998In Liljedahl Bros., Inc. v. Grigsby, supra, 215 Conn. 350 , the contractor claimed that there was an implied contract, and we concluded that an implied contract claim was barred by the requirement of § 20-429 (a) that the home improvement contract be in writing.

1996"The plaintiff's belief that he had an employment contract with the defendant, without more, is insufficient to sustain an implied contract claim." Id.

1990Such a claim is refuted by the plain language of § 20-429 (a), which provides that “[n]o home improvement contract shall be valid unless it is in writing and unless it contains the entire agreement between the owner and the contractor.” The plaintiffs claim to a right to recovery grounded in a contract implied in law or in quasi contract cannot survive our decision in Barrett Builders v. Miller, 215 Conn. 316 , 576 A.2d 455 (1990).

1990Such a claim is refuted by the plain language of § 20-429 (a), which provides that “[n]o home improvement contract shall be valid unless it is in writing and unless it contains the entire agreement between the owner and the contractor.” The plaintiffs claim to a right to recovery grounded in a contract implied in law or in quasi contract cannot survive our decision in Barrett Builders v. Miller, 215 Conn. 316 , 576 A.2d 455 (1990).

1913Hewison v. New Haven, 37 Conn. 475 .

1913Co. v. Bridgeport Traction Co., 65 Conn. 410, 423 , 32 Atl. 953 , this court said: “But the plaintiff holds its right of way charged with the performance of a public trust for its continuous use for public accommodation.” It is true that in the case of municipal corporations this court has declined to extend the doctrine of implied contract with the State so far as to embrace a strictly governmental duty, for the reason that it preferred not to infringe upon the principle of governmental immunity.

1913Co. v. Bridgeport Traction Co., 65 Conn. 410, 423 , 32 Atl. 953 , this court said: “But the plaintiff holds its right of way charged with the performance of a public trust for its continuous use for public accommodation.” It is true that in the case of municipal corporations this court has declined to extend the doctrine of implied contract with the State so far as to embrace a strictly governmental duty, for the reason that it preferred not to infringe upon the principle of governmental immunity.