158 Conn.App. 248
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Proctor worked at a poultry business on a leased Ellington farm; the business was sold in June 2008 to Robert Chan (doing business as Pedigree Chicks) and Proctor became a consultant.
- Proctor contacted Connecticut Light & Power (CL&P) to arrange electric service for Pedigree Chicks; the business was not registered with the Secretary of State so it could not get a commercial account.
- On November 26, 2008, Proctor provided CL&P with personal identifying information (including his social security number), told CL&P he would assume responsibility for service back to June 20, 2008, and CL&P mailed him an application and deposit request; Proctor did not return the signed application.
- CL&P provided service and ultimately was not paid; service was terminated August 20, 2009, with an unpaid balance of $14,620.51.
- CL&P sued on two counts: (1) breach of an implied in fact contract; (2) unjust enrichment (implied in law). The trial court found an implied in fact contract and awarded CL&P $14,620.51; it entered judgment for Proctor on the unjust enrichment count.
- Proctor appealed, arguing the trial court’s finding of an implied in fact contract was erroneous. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an implied in fact contract existed obligating Proctor to pay for electricity | CL&P: Proctor gave identifying info, told CL&P he would assume responsibility, accepted service — conduct shows assent and expectation of payment | Proctor: He acted to help Chan; did not sign or return application; Chan was responsible and Proctor never asked to keep account open | Court: Implied in fact contract found; factual findings not clearly erroneous |
| Whether unjust enrichment relief was available despite a contract theory | CL&P pleaded unjust enrichment as alternative to contract | Proctor relied on equitable theory to avoid contract liability | Court: Unjust enrichment denied because a contract was found; equitable relief unavailable when contract governs |
Key Cases Cited
- Gould v. Hall, 64 Conn. App. 45 (discusses implied-in-fact contract standard)
- Janusauskas v. Fichman, 264 Conn. 796 (explains implied-in-fact contract arises from conduct and expectation of payment)
- Vertex, Inc. v. Waterbury, 278 Conn. 557 (distinguishes implied-in-fact and implied-in-law contracts; unjust enrichment explained)
- Meaney v. Connecticut Hospital Assn., Inc., 250 Conn. 500 (unjust enrichment unavailable if contract exists)
- Old Colony Construction, LLC v. Southington, 316 Conn. 202 (standard of review for factual findings)
- Hartford Whalers Hockey Club v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co., 231 Conn. 276 (equitable basis for unjust enrichment)