327 A.2d 740 (Conn.Cir.Ct. 1974), CV 6-702-45346, Associated Credit Co. v. Nogic

Docket Nº:CV 6-702-45346.
Citation:327 A.2d 740, 6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 745
Opinion Judge:BURNS, Judge.
Party Name:ASSOCIATED CREDIT COMPANY v. Lawrence NOGIC et al.
Attorney:Alvin M. Murray, New Haven, for plaintiff. Francis X. Dineen, New Haven, for defendants.
Judge Panel:BURNS,
Case Date:May 16, 1974
Court:Circuit Court of Connecticut

Page 740

327 A.2d 740 (Conn.Cir.Ct. 1974)

6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 745

ASSOCIATED CREDIT COMPANY

v.

Lawrence NOGIC et al.

No. CV 6-702-45346.

Circuit Court of Connecticut, Sixth Circuit.

May 16, 1974

Page 741

Alvin M. Murray, New Haven, for plaintiff.

Francis X. Dineen, New Haven, for defendants.

BURNS, Judge.

This is an action in which the plaintiff, as assignee, seeks judgment against the defendants, as makers, on a note, alleging that the note was given to the plaintiff's assignor pursuant to a home solicitation sale and remains fully unpaid. The defendants in answer denied several of the allegations of the plaintiff's bill of particulars, offered [6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 746] nine special defenses, and interposed a counterclaim for a penalty under the federal Consumer Credit Protection Act (15 U.S.C. § 1640 (1970)) and Federal Reserve Board 'Regulation Z' promulgated thereunder. See 12 C.F.R., pt. 226.

The court, having heard the parties on the issues, finds the following: On October 28, 1969, the defendants, as buyers, and Holiday Food Company, Inc., hereinafter called Holiday, as seller, entered into an agreement for the sale of an upright freezer and a 'Jumbo Pack' food program. This agreement was based on a home solicitation sale, as that term was defined and regulated by the Home Solicitation Sales Act, chapter 740 of the General Statutes, as amended by Public Acts 1969, No. 178.

The agreement stated separately the price and method of payment for the freezer and the price and method of payment for the food program, and the parties executed one note, on paper of the Tradesmen's National Bank, providing for payment of the freezer, and another note providing for payment, at the office of the plaintiff, for the food program. Each note bore the notation, 'This instrument is based upon a home solicitation sale, which sale is subject to the provisions of the Home Solicitation Sales Act. This instrument is not negotiable.' Both the freezer and the food were received by the defendants, who retained the former and consumed the latter. The note executed in payment for the food program was assigned by Holiday to the plaintiff and is the subject of this litigation.

Of the nine special defenses by the defendants, only the first need be considered, since it is dispositive of the plaintiff's claim, i.e., that the note is subject to all claims and defenses which the defendants might have against Holiday, that the note was based on a home solicitation sale, and...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP