162 Conn.App. 294
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Pelletier Mechanical Services performed repairs for properties managed by G & W Management, acting as agent for the property owners.
- From Jan 26, 2010 to Jun 18, 2010, Pelletier provided goods and services; defendant failed to pay $16,462.28.
- Plaintiff sued on breach of contract, quantum meruit, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment.
- Defendant moved to strike for lack of proper party and failure to join principals; court denied the motion based on factual issues not in the complaint.
- Trial court found Bell Court Condominium Association liable for the debt (breach of contract) and found no liability on quantum meruit; for Gionta residence defendant prevailed.
- On appeal, the court addressed agency law: whether defendant’s disclosure of principal affects its liability as agent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court properly deny the motion to strike? | Defense failed to join necessary principals; agency facts not in complaint were misused. | Work was performed for principals; defendant was agent; principals not joined makes suit improper. | Yes; denial affirmed on alternative ground that parties and facts support liability analysis. |
| Is the defendant liable as agent for Bell Court debt under agency law? | Defendant failed to disclose principal identity; agent liable on contract. | Disclosed principal identity; should relieve agent of liability. | No; defendant did not adequately disclose principal; liable as agent. |
| Can the breach claim against Bell Court stand given agency findings? | Agency relationship imposes principal liability for agreed work. | Lack of disclosed principal identity and proper parties defeats breach claim against Bell Court. | Breaches upheld against defendant as agent; Bell Court’s liability remains for the contract. |
Key Cases Cited
- Connecticut Limousine Service, Inc. v. Powers, 7 Conn. App. 401 (Ct. App. 1995) (disclosure duty to identify principal; agent liable if undisclosed)
- Diamond Match Co. v. Crute, 145 Conn. 277 (1939) (corporate checks do not absolve agent without disclosure)
- Klepp Wood Flooring Corp. v. Butterfield, 176 Conn. 528 (1979) (agency disclosure governs personal liability of agent)
- Vine v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 281 Conn. 553 (2007) (alternate grounds for affirmance may be considered in appropriate circumstances)
- State v. Martin M., 143 Conn. App. 140 (2013) (pure legal question review on alternative grounds when proper)
- Connecticut Limousine Servs., Inc. v. Powers, 7 Conn. App. 401 (1995) (reiterates agent must disclose principal to avoid personal liability)
- Murphy v. Dell Corp., 184 Conn. 581 (1981) (disclosure duty; agent remains liable where undisclosed)