182 Conn. App. 594
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- In 2007 Murallo purchased GeoDeck materials from United Builders for decks on his Waterford residence and paid $4,749.81 by credit card; construction completed in November 2007.
- Murallo reported spacing/defects in 2008; defendant inspected and said gaps would close. Disputes continued and Murallo obtained an American Express charge-back in January 2009, refunding the material cost.
- After discussions, on September 2, 2009, VP Jared Beaulieu emailed that United Builders would not provide materials (because of the charge-back) but would provide labor to replace the decks "when and if" Murallo replaced the materials. Beaulieu later described the email as memorializing an agreement.
- Murallo indicated in 2011 he wanted replacement and returned an account statement requesting scheduling of workers; United Builders never provided the labor.
- Murallo sued (small claims, transferred to regular docket) asserting breach of contract (among other counts). Trial court found no contract, ruling the September 2, 2009 email was an unaccepted offer; judgment for defendant. Appeal followed.
- The Appellate Court held the trial court’s finding that no contract existed was clearly erroneous and ordered a new trial on the breach of contract count (including request for fees under §52-251a); other rulings were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a binding contract existed memorialized by the Sept. 2, 2009 email | Murallo: he and Beaulieu reached an agreement; the email memorialized that United Builders would provide labor to install replacement decking if Murallo supplied materials | United Builders (trial court): the email was an offer which Murallo never accepted, so no contract | Appellate Court: reversed — the record shows the parties had an agreement and the email memorialized it; trial court’s finding that it was unaccepted offer was clearly erroneous; new trial on breach of contract required |
| Whether a new trial should address plaintiff's performance, defendant's breach, and damages | Murallo: trial court failed to consider whether he performed and the defendant breached and what damages follow | United Builders: (implicit) no contract, so no need to assess performance, breach, or damages | Appellate Court: because court wrongly treated the email as an unaccepted offer, it failed to decide performance/breach/damages; remand for new trial on those issues |
| Whether the decking materials were defective (relevant to consideration/forbearance) | Murallo: if materials were defective, his forbearance supports consideration for the 2009 agreement | United Builders: trial court found materials not defective | Appellate Court: declined to decide because contract issue controls; remanded, so defect question not addressed on appeal |
| Entitlement to attorney’s fees under §52-251a | Murallo: requests fees if he prevails on remand as a transferred small-claims plaintiff | United Builders: trial court denied fees because it prevailed on all counts | Appellate Court: remanded — if Murallo prevails on breach count on remand, trial court may award fees under §52-251a; claim treated as part of relief on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Electric Wholesalers, Inc. v. M.J.B. Corp., 99 Conn. App. 294, 912 A.2d 1117 (2007) (existence of contract is a factual finding reviewed for clear error; agreement must be definite and show meeting of minds)
- Iseli Co. v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 211 Conn. 133, 558 A.2d 966 (1989) (forebearance to prosecute a claim can be valid consideration if asserted in good faith)
- Doyle Group v. Alaskans for Cuddy, 164 Conn. App. 209, 137 A.3d 809 (2016) (award of fees under §52-251a requires prevailing party status in transferred small claims; entitlement inquiry follows merits)