179 Conn. App. 555
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- In September 2012 United Amusements & Vending Co. (United) and Daniel Sabia agreed United would lease arcade/ATM/jukebox/dart equipment to Sabia for his bar; Sabia signed the written lease and accepted a $6,000 advance.
- United purchased equipment from third parties but never installed it after Sabia ceased responding and returned the uncashed advance check.
- United sued for breach of contract on December 5, 2012; after a bench trial the court awarded United $15,000 in damages, $5,000 in attorney’s fees, and costs; the attorney’s fees award was later vacated.
- On articulation the trial court explained the $15,000 comprised a $10,000 restocking charge (50% asserted restocking) and $500/month for ten months as an operator’s commission.
- Sabia appealed, arguing the contract was unenforceable (mistake/duress), contained unconscionable provisions, and the damages award was unsupported by the evidence. The appellate court affirmed except it reversed the damages award and remanded for a proper damages hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Finality for appeal | United: merits judgment is final even if attorney’s fees remain | Sabia: challenged appealability because fees unresolved | Court: judgment on merits is final under Paranteau bright-line rule; appeal proper |
| Special defenses: mistake and duress | United: contract valid and enforceable | Sabia: contract unenforceable due to mistake and duress | Court: not reviewable — record inadequate (no findings or signed transcript; appellant failed to preserve via notice/articulation) |
| Unconscionability of contract provisions | United: contract terms enforceable | Sabia: contract provisions unconscionable so damages should be voided/limited | Court: not reviewable — inadequate record (no findings, no articulation) |
| Damages calculation | United: $15,000 composed of restocking fee + operator commissions; relied on invoices and testimony | Sabia: award inconsistent with evidence; no basis for 50% restocking or $500×10 months | Court: award clearly erroneous; no evidentiary basis for $10,000 50% restocking or $500×10 operator commission — reversed and remanded for hearing in damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Paranteau v. DeVita, 208 Conn. 515 (bright-line rule: judgment on merits final even if attorney’s fees unresolved)
- Hylton v. Gunter, 313 Conn. 472 (applies Paranteau rule beyond statutory fees)
- Benvenuto v. Mahajan, 245 Conn. 495 (Paranteau rule applied in strict foreclosure context)
- Doyle Group v. Alaskans for Cuddy, 164 Conn. App. 209 (Conn. App. applies Paranteau to contractual fee issues)
- Emlee Equipment Leasing Corp. v. Waterbury Transmission, Inc., 31 Conn. App. 455 (unconscionability review and leasing contexts)
- Village Mortgage Co. v. Veneziano, 175 Conn. App. 59 (appellant’s duty to provide adequate record for review)
- Michaels v. Michaels, 163 Conn. App. 837 (inadequate record where no memorandum or signed transcript and no timely notice under Practice Book)
- Meadowbrook Center, Inc. v. Buchman, 149 Conn. App. 177 (standards for damages review in contract cases)