Breach of Contract Cases

Appellant appeals the trial court's order affirming the award of an arbitrator. Appellant filed suit against its former employee, the Appellee, alleging breach of contract for violation of certain provisions of the employee handbook, which also contained an arbitration clause. Because the handbook does not constitute an enforceable employment contract, the trial court erred in ordering the parties to arbitrate and in affirming the arbitrator's award. Reversed and remanded.

Appellant appeals the trial court's order affirming the award of an arbitrator. Appellant filed suit against its former employee, the Appellee, alleging breach of contract for violation of certain provisions of the employee handbook, which also contained an arbitration clause. Because the handbook does not constitute an enforceable employment contract, the trial court erred in ordering the parties to arbitrate and in affirming the arbitrator's award. Reversed and remanded.

The plaintiff general contractor sought to recover damages for, inter alia, an alleged violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42-110a et seq.), in connection with a breach of contract claim between the plaintiff and the defendants, a subcontractor, T Co., and its manager, P. Under the contract, T Co. was to perform certain work on a construc- tion project to build a condominium complex at a fixed sum. Although the contract called for payment upon delivery for furnished materials and equipment, the defendants convinced the plaintiff to pay a 30 percent deposit for all of the estimated costs of materials and equipment up front, claiming that the deposit would be used to buy materials ahead of time to avoid an anticipated price increase and to avoid delivery delays. Unknown to the plaintiff, the defendants did not intend to use these funds as promised but, instead, intended to use the funds to finance its payroll and work on other projects. When the invoices for supplies remained unpaid by the defendants, a mechanic's lien was placed on the property and, thereafter, the plaintiff terminated the contract. The trial court concluded that the defendants breached the contract, inter alia, in failing to perform the work and to pay for materials, equipment and labor used, and that the defendants were unjustly enriched. It also found the defendants' conduct was deceptive, unethical and unscrupu- lous and constituted an unfair and deceptive business practice in viola- tion of CUTPA. On the defendants' appeal to this court, held: 1. Contrary to the defendants' claims, there was sufficient evidence of inten- tional, reckless, unethical and unscrupulous conduct by both defendants to establish a violation of CUTPA: the record supported a finding that P, as the manager and controlling member of T Co., knowingly or recklessly engaged in the unscrupulous acts, because he personally represented to the plaintiff that the deposit would be used for materials, l

SUMMARY JUDGMENT — BREACH OF CONTRACT — CONDITION PRECEDENT — ANTI-WAIVER CLAUSE — INDEMNIFICATION — TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH A CONTRACT: The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff where it was undisputed that defendants waived a condition precedent to the party's agreements by failing to enforce an "invoice requirement" for seven years. The trial court properly found that the anti-wavier clause contained within the agreements was not triggered as non-performance of a condition precedent is not a breach of contract and plaintiff did not violate the agreements. The trial court properly concluded that defendants were entitled to summary judgment on defendants' indemnification claims where the record reflects that plaintiff was required to indemnify the defendants against any losses arising out of plaintiff's services and defendants' losses related those services began to incur before defendants breached the agreements. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment as to the amount of damages that plaintiffs owed on the indemnification claim because defendants were not entitled to include its own employees' salaries as expenses and plaintiff disputed the reasonableness of the defendants' claimed damages. The trial court properly denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's tortious interference claim where co-defendants have an agency relationship.