Walpole Woodworkers, Inc. v. Manning
11 A.3d 165
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Contract to install a fence; Walpole agreed to perform for $22,318 and received an $11,000 deposit
- Work substantially completed in Nov. 2004; defendant delayed payment and raised a new concern about his dog’s ability to escape
- Plaintiff demanded payment Jan. 2006, seeking balance, interest, costs and attorney’s fees under the contract
- Attorney fact finder found the contract violated § 20-429(a)(7) by lacking a start and completion date, yet plaintiff prevailed on breach and bad-faith defense
- Defendant invoked the act in bad faith to avoid payment; court reduced attorney’s fees but entered judgment for balance due; contract deemed unenforceable due to act violation
- On appeal, issues include whether bad faith precludes full contract-based recovery and whether § 20-429(f) or rescission claims alter recovery
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant’s conduct constituted bad faith | Manning acted with dishonest purpose to avoid payment | Disagreement over work quality, not bad faith | Yes; trial court properly found bad faith |
| Whether bad faith allows full contract recovery including interest and fees | Bad faith permits full recovery under contract despite act violation | Act violation bars full recoveries; only value of work recoverable | No; contract unenforceable due to act; plaintiff entitled only to value of work performed |
| Effect of § 20-429(f) on recovery under bad faith | § 20-429(f) does not override bad faith rule | Subsection (f) permits restitution independent of bad faith | Section 20-429(f) does not override bad faith exception; quantum meruit not triggered in this case |
| Whether defendant’s rescission/recoupment claim has merit | Rescission inappropriate; no damages under CUTPA; cancellation proper | Entitled to rescind and recoup deposit under Truth-in-Lending provisions | Without merit; recoupment denied; cancellation valid; no windfall |
Key Cases Cited
- Habetz v. Condon, 224 Conn. 231 (1992) (bad faith exception precludes homeowner from hiding behind act; contractor recovers value of work)
- Rizzo Pool Co. v. Del Grosso, 232 Conn. 666 (1995) (unenforceable contract; bad faith exception limits recovery to value of work; no liquidated damages)
- Barrett Builders v. Miller, 215 Conn. 316 (1990) (Barrett doctrine; homeowner cannot invoke act in bad faith to unjustly bar contractor)
- Lucien v. McCormick Construction, LLC, 122 Conn.App. 295 (2010) (mere disagreement over performance not bad faith; context for bad faith standard)
- Wright Bros. Builders, Inc. v. Dowling, 247 Conn. 218 (1998) (remedial nature of act; some noncompliance may be treated as technical; context for enforceability)
- Newtown Pool Construction, LLC v. Errico, 103 Conn.App. 566 (2007) (subsection (f) allows quantum meruit in partially noncompliant contracts)