148 Conn. App. 39
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- In Nov. 2007 Treglia arranged oil deliveries from Santa Fuel; defendant approved credit and orally agreed to a $2.789/gallon "cap price" and mailed a written contract. 619.9 gallons were delivered Nov. 5, 2007.
- Plaintiff returned a signed contract postmarked Nov. 20; defendant then sent a new contract (postmarked Nov. 23) listing a $2.979 cap and informed plaintiff the earlier offer had expired.
- Plaintiff paid $1,728.90 and claimed the employee told him the $2.789 price for the first delivery would be honored; subsequent deliveries (Jan. 4 and Feb. 29, 2008) were billed at $2.979/gallon and went unpaid.
- Plaintiff sued in small claims asserting (1) breach for overcharging first delivery, (2) excess deliveries, (3) CUTPA/credit damage; defendant counterclaimed for amounts owed for post-Nov. 27, 2007 deliveries and unjust enrichment.
- Trial court ruled for defendant on plaintiff’s complaint counts and awarded defendant $1,448.81 principal, $1,016.71 interest, and $478.11 attorney’s fees (total $2,943.63). Plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant breached by charging more than the agreed $2.789 for the first (Nov. 5) delivery | Treglia: parties agreed $2.789; he paid that amount and is entitled to damages for any excess charged | Santa Fuel: acknowledged agreeing to accept $2.789 for first delivery but maintains billing adjustments and later contract govern balances | Court: Agreement for $2.789 for first delivery existed; plaintiff paid that amount and therefore suffered no damages — judgment for defendant as to count one affirmed |
| Whether plaintiff was liable for subsequent automatic deliveries he claimed he did not need | Treglia: he notified defendant he would not need deliveries "for some time" and should not be charged for unwanted oil | Santa Fuel: plaintiff signed the (later) higher-rate contract requiring automatic deliveries and never terminated deliveries or specified a stop | Court: plaintiff signed up for automatic delivery and did not clearly terminate or limit deliveries; judgment for defendant on count two affirmed |
| Whether defendant violated CUTPA / damaged plaintiff's credit | Treglia: alleges CUTPA and credit harm (no developed briefing on appeal) | Santa Fuel: denies unlawful practice | Court: Plaintiff failed to brief/argue this claim on appeal; claim abandoned and not reviewed |
| Whether the damages awarded on defendant's counterclaim were correctly calculated | Treglia: court's award is clearly erroneous and unsupported by reconciliation/calculation | Santa Fuel: sought principal, interest, fees for deliveries after Nov. 27, 2007 | Court: Calculation of principal ($1,448.81) was mathematically incorrect because it did not account for agreed credits and the $2.789 concession for first delivery; award reversed and remanded for recalculation |
Key Cases Cited
- Petrucelli v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 146 Conn. App. 631 (standard for reviewing factual findings: clearly erroneous)
- Bailey v. Lanou, 138 Conn. App. 661 (presumption in favor of trial court findings)
- Ibar v. Stratek Plastic Ltd., 145 Conn. App. 401 (elements of breach of contract)
- RBC Nice Bearings, Inc. v. SKF USA, Inc., 146 Conn. App. 288 (purpose of contract damages)
- Russell v. Russell, 91 Conn. App. 619 (issues inadequately briefed are abandoned)
- Hartford v. McKeever, 139 Conn. App. 277 (judicial admissions binding from pleadings)
- New London Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bialobrodec, 137 Conn. App. 474 (factual allegations in pleadings as judicial admissions)
- Ed Lally & Assocs., Inc. v. DSBNC, LLC, 145 Conn. App. 718 (damages determinations reviewed for clear error)