ANDY'S OIL SERVICE, INC. v. Hobbs
125 Conn. App. 708
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2010Background
- On June 8, 2004 homeowners contracted with Hobbs, a general contractor, for home improvements including the system.
- Plaintiff Andy's Oil Service, Inc. submitted a subcontractor bid for the system on May 5, 2005 for $16,250.
- Hobbs did not sign the plaintiff's proposal, but installation proceeded through the first week of June 2005.
- May 16, 2005 Hobbs claimed contract termination; May 23, 2005 Janiszewski allowed termination under conditions, and Hobbs stopped work; another contractor was hired to finish.
- After installation, Hobbs and Janiszewski refused to pay plaintiff; plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging unjust enrichment and breach theories; homeowners answered and Hobbs was sued via a cross-claim.
- The trial court found: (1) Hobbs did not have a binding contract with plaintiff and was not unjustly enriched; (2) homeowners were unjustly enriched and the Home Improvement Act applied with a bad-faith exception; (3) Hobbs could terminate for anticipatory breach by Janiszewski; the Home Improvement Act defense was later found inapplicable on appeal.
- On appeal, the court ultimately held that the Home Improvement Act did not apply to the plaintiff because plaintiff was a subcontractor, and therefore unjust enrichment against homeowners was permitted; it also upheld the anticipatory breach finding favoring Hobbs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Home Improvement Act applies | Act applies to homeowners defense; it allows bad-faith exception. | Act applies; contract did not satisfy §20-429(a). | Act does not apply; subcontractor scenario excludes the contract from the Act. |
| Whether unjust enrichment against homeowners is viable independent of the Act | Plaintiff can recover under unjust enrichment; homeowners were unjustly enriched. | No unjust enrichment; homeowners paid in good faith or no enrichment. | Unjust enrichment against homeowners is viable; bad-faith exception not required where Act does not apply. |
| Whether homeowners anticipatorily breached the Hobbs contract | Hobbs terminated due to anticipatory repudiation by homeowners; grounds for termination. | No anticipatory repudiation; evidence insufficient. | Trial court's finding of anticipatory breach by homeowners affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- A&C Corp. v. Pernaselci, 2 Conn. App. 264 (Ct. App. 1984) (unjust enrichment generally; general doctrine)
- Meadows v. Higgins, 249 Conn. 155 (Sup. Ct. 1999) (contract writing requirements; subcontractor scope)
- MJ M Landscaping, Inc. v. Lorant, 268 Conn. 429 (Sup. Ct. 2004) (subcontractor relationship; act applicability)
- Dinnis v. Roberts, 35 Conn. App. 253 (Ct. App. 1994) (bad faith exception to Act defense)
- Lombardi, Inc. v. Smithfield, 11 A.3d 1180 (Del. 2014) (unjust enrichment principles; contract vs. quasi-contract)
- Land Group, Inc. v. Palmieri, 1 A.3d 234 (Conn. App. 2010) (assessment of contract performance; appellate review)
- Nor'easter Group, Inc. v. Colossale Concrete, Inc., 207 Conn. 468 (Sup. Ct. 1988) (trial credibility; anticipatory breach framework)
- Vesce v. Lee, 185 Conn. 328 (Sup. Ct. 1981) (credibility; appellate review of findings)