City of Waterbury v. PHOENIX SOIL, LLC, 128 Conn. App. 619

City of Waterbury and Phoenix Soil, LLC entered into a 1993 contract regarding operation of a desorption unit at Freight Street, after Waterbury withdrew opposition to a Department of Environmental Protection permit.
Contract limited operation to three years after the final air permit (issued March 23, 1999) and barred expansions without Waterbury’s approval.
Waterbury filed suit in 1998 seeking declarations and relief; amended the complaint in 2006 to assert a breach of contract based on continued operation beyond three years and permit extensions.
The trial court held the three-year period began in 1999 but, due to Waterbury’s delay, fashioned an equitable remedy allowing three more years of operation from March 26, 2009, rather than immediate termination.
Waterbury appealed, contending the court erred by not issuing an injunction and by effectively altering the contract; the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
Notes: entities related to Phoenix Soil, Inc. and Soil Recyclers, Inc. are treated as the same for purposes of this case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court should have issued an injunction for breach of contract	Waterbury argues breach occurred and injunction was proper	Phoenix Soil contends no breach requiring injunction and no irreparable harm shown	No abuse; equity permitted a wind-down remedy rather than immediate injunction
Whether the court implicitly found breach and thus had to grant relief	Court found breach by continued operation beyond three years	Court did not expressly find breach; equity discretion applied	Court’s implicit finding supported by memorandum; injunction not required given equity ruling
Whether the court improperly extended the contractual three-year period through equity rather than enforcing the contract	Court rewrote contract by delaying termination	Delay was due to Waterbury’s delay in prosecuting; not a contract rewrite	Not an improper rewrite; equitable remedy within court’s discretion
Whether the court’s relief violated pleadings or requests for relief	Relief should have been immediate injunction as requested	Relief aligned with pleadings; court acted within equitable discretion	Relief consistent with pleadings and equity; no error in relief fashioned
Whether the court properly balanced equities in fashioning relief	Equity favored Waterbury	Delay by Waterbury justified wind-down period	Court acted within its discretionary equity powers; no reversal necessary

JSA Financial Corp. v. Quality Kitchen Corp. of Delaware, 113 Conn.App. 52 (Conn. App. 2009) (implicit disposition when judgment is not explicit about issue raised)
Paulsen v. Manson, 193 Conn. 333 (1964) (courts construe implicit holdings from judgments showing favorable result to party)
Apostles of the Sacred Heart v. Curott, 187 Conn. 591 (1982) (support for interpreting favorable findings even when not explicit)
Hartford Electric Light Co. v. Levitz, 173 Conn. 15 (1977) (injunctions depend on equities; not automatic for covenant violations)
Castonguay v. Plourde, 46 Conn.App. 251 (1997) (equitable relief assessment; abuse of discretion standard)
19 Perry Street, LLC v. Unionville Water Co., 294 Conn. 611 (2010) (liberal, equitable interpretation of remedies in contract disputes)
Fellows v. Martin, 217 Conn. 57 (1991) (equitable discretion; balancing interests in remedies)
Electrical Wholesalers, Inc. v. M.J.B. Corp., 99 Conn. App. 294 (2007) (equitable balancing and discretion in contract cases)
Journal Publishing Co. v. Hartford Courant Co., 261 Conn. 673 (2002) (pleading limitations on relief; relief must conform to pleadings)
Gino's Pizza of East Hartford, Inc. v. Kaplan, 193 Conn. 135 (1984) (enforcement of restrictive covenants requires equity balance)