Go Syfert

Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-249 (2026)

Penalty

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any licensed master barber who fails to comply with any regulation adopted under this chapter shall forfeit his right to be again licensed. Any person who practices the occupation of a master barber without having obtained a certificate of registration, or wilfully employs a master barber who does not have such a certificate, or falsely pretends to be qualified to practice such occupation, or practices the occupation of a master barber after the expiration of his license, or violates any other provision of this chapter, unless a penalty is otherwise specifically prescribed, shall be fined not more than two hundred fifty dollars.

(1949 Rev., S. 4584; P.A. 77-614, S. 450, 610; P.A. 81-471, S. 54, 71; P.A. 82-472, S. 82, 112; P.A. 12-80, S. 12.)

History: P.A. 77-614 replaced regulations adopted by board with regulations “under this chapter”, effective January 1, 1979; P.A. 81-471 changed “barber” to “master barber”; P.A. 82-472 made a technical change; P.A. 12-80 replaced penalty of a fine of not more than $100 or imprisonment of not more than 30 days or both with a fine of not more than $250 and made a technical change.

Cited. 212 C. 810.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 2003–2017 · leading case: MacMillan v. Higgins, 822 A.2d 246 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

MacMillan v. Higgins, 822 A.2d 246 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 2× “Additionally, they agreed 9 that the contract did not conform to the act’s mandatory requirements, as set forth in General Statutes § 20-249 (a). 10 Specifically, the contract did not contain a notice of the defendants’ three day cancellation right, as required by the act.”

Burns v. Adler, 155 A.3d 1223 (Conn. 2017). “" The trial court concluded that the agreement did not satisfy the requirements of § 20-249 (a) or (f) because it was not signed by the plaintiff, it did not contain a completion date and the plaintiff failed to prove that he delivered a completed copy of it to the defendant.”

E & M Custom Homes, LLC v. Negron, 59 A.3d 262 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013). “uding that the referee improperly failed to reduce the plaintiffs’ damages by the unpaid balance remaining on the contract, agreed with the defendant that “under traditional contract damages law, the appropriate measure of damages in a construction contract case is the…”

Burns v. Adler (Conn. 2017). “’’ The trial court concluded that the agreement did not satisfy the requirements of § 20-249 (a) or (f) because it was not signed by the plaintiff, it did not contain a completion date and the plaintiff failed to prove that he delivered a completed copy of it to the defendant.”

Burns v. Adler (Conn. App. Ct. 2015). “Nevertheless, because actions brought under the bad faith exception and § 20-249 (f) both arise from unenforceable contracts, they are best described as in quantum meruit for the reasonable value of services which were requested by the owner .”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.