Conn. Light & Power Co. v. Proctor
| Decision Date | 28 December 2016 |
| Docket Number | SC 19531 |
| Citation | 152 A.3d 470,324 Conn. 245 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | CONNECTICUT LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY v. Gary PROCTOR |
Derek V. Oatis, for the appellant (defendant).
Alexander G. Snyder, Waterbury, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Rogers, C.J., and Palmer, Zarella, Eveleigh, McDonald, Espinosa and Robinson, Js.
The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether the trial court properly found that the defendant, Gary Proctor, manifested assent to enter into an implied in fact contract with the plaintiff, Connecticut Light and Power Company, for the provision of electric services to a third party. We conclude that the Appellate Court properly determined that the trial court's finding that the parties had entered into an implied in fact contract under which the defendant would be responsible for payment for those services was not clearly erroneous. Connecticut Light & Power Co . v. Proctor , 158 Conn.App. 248, 256, 118 A.3d 702 (2015). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The record reveals the following undisputed facts and procedural history. Prior to June, 2008, the defendant was employed by Avicula of America as general manager of its poultry business conducted on a farm leased by Avicula at 44 Upper Butcher Road in Ellington (farm). In June, 2008, Avicula sold the business to Robert Chan, Eastern Poultry Distributors, LLC, and Pedigree Chicks, LLC, who continued to operate the business at that site. The defendant was retained by Pedigree Chicks on a part-time basis to facilitate the transition. As part of that transition, the defendant was asked to set up an account for electric services for the new business. After the defendant contacted the plaintiff, it provided such service to the farm under an account in the defendant's name until August 20, 2009, at which time service was disconnected for non-payment.
In December, 2011, the plaintiff brought the present action against the defendant for breach of an implied contract and unjust enrichment, alleging that it had provided electric services to the defendant at his request and that $14,620.51 in bills remained outstanding. The matter proceeded to a bench trial. The plaintiff proffered testimony from two of its representatives and documentary evidence. The defendant proffered his own testimony and no other evidence.
The plaintiff's primary witness, Jennifer Dupuis, who had experience monitoring delinquent accounts for the plaintiff, testified regarding the plaintiff's internal procedures for the creation and maintenance of its electric services accounts. She testified that whenever there are communications between the plaintiff and a prospective customer or a customer with an existing account, a notation is made in the plaintiff's internal computer system documenting the event. These notations, according to Dupuis, are made during or shortly after the event described therein. With that foundation, the plaintiff introduced internal records documenting its communications with the defendant through Dupuis. Although Dupuis had no personal knowledge of these communications, she was able to explain the meaning of certain abbreviated terms or terms of art used by the plaintiff's representatives in the ordinary course of business to document these interactions.
The internal records reflect that the defendant first contacted the plaintiff in August, 2008, regarding electric services for the new business. The representative who received the "service inq[uiry]" noted that "[the defendant] has the business Ped[i]gree Chicks ...." The record further noted that Pedigree Chicks was not registered with the Connecticut Secretary of the State state), which Dupuis explained was a requirement for establishing a commercial account. The defendant informed the representative that he did not want to put the account in his name. The defendant inquired about the balance due from the previous business but was unable to obtain that information because he could not provide Avicula's account number, and informed the representative that he would get in touch with the previous business to get more information.
The defendant telephoned the plaintiff again in November, 2008. According to the record of that call, the defendant informed the plaintiff that the "company took serv[ice]" as of June 20, 2008. According to Dupuis, when a prospective customer requests service, the representative always asks from what date the customer wants service to be established under the name of the newly created account. The record indicated that the representative cancelled the bill for the previous customer back to June 20, 2008, processed documentation to have an account set up, verified a mailing address, sent an application, and quoted a deposit of $2520.
Contemporaneous with the creation of that record, the plaintiff generated a "customer maintenance page" displaying the defendant's first name, middle initial, and last name, his home and cell phone numbers, and his Social Security number.1 Dupuis testified that such information would be obtained only if the customer was "knowingly [accepting] personal responsibility for an account ...." The maintenance page indicated that the "legal entity" for which services were to be provided is a "proprietorship" for the defendant, with the defendant's name as the only entry in the field for "Responsible Parties." The page also denoted that the defendant was doing business as Pedigree Chicks with the farm's address listed as the service address. Pedigree Chicks was still not registered with the state at this time or any relevant time thereafter.
The defendant received at his home address a document entitled "Commercial & Industrial Application for Service" designated for a "PROPRIETORSHIP," which was accompanied by a letter dated November 26, 2008, the same date as the November telephone call. The defendant's name was on the first line of the application under the field for "Account Name." The application listed the defendant's home address as the mailing address for the account and the farm's address as the service address. According to Dupuis, it is the plaintiff's regular practice to verify with each customer to what address he or she wants correspondence to be delivered and that this correspondence would not have been mailed to the defendant's home address unless he had requested it. There was no reference to Chan, Eastern Poultry, or Pedigree Chicks in the application, nor to any addresses associated with any one of them other than the farm.
The letter accompanying the application was addressed to the defendant, also noting his home address. The subject field stated "Application for Service—Deposit Required," listed an account number underneath, and the farm's address below the account number. Just as with the application, there was no reference to Chan, Eastern Poultry, or Pedigree Chicks in the letter. As to the content of the letter, it thanked the defendant for his "request" for electric service, indicated that a security deposit was required for the account, for which the defendant would be billed shortly, and asked that he complete and return the application.
The defendant neither returned the application nor paid a deposit. There is no record that any bill for a deposit was ever issued in connection with the subject account. Dupuis testified that the plaintiff may—and routinely does—accept oral applications from prospective customers or, at its election, may require a written application as a condition to service. The letter requested that the application be returned within seven days but did not state that receipt of a signed and completed application was a condition to service.
According to the plaintiff's records, the defendant telephoned the plaintiff again on January 13, 2009, "because he had not received a billing." Dupuis testified that, in order for a representative to discuss matters relating to an account that had been created, the account holder would have to verify his personal information contained in the plaintiff's internal database. The plaintiff's record of this call first reflects that "order instructions indicate that [the] customer has accepted responsibility for this site as of June 20, 2008."2 It then indicates that the defendant told the representative that the account should not be in his name because he was "only the manager." The record noted that the representative suggested to the defendant that he should get the company to take over the service, but reminded him that it would have to be registered with the state. The record indicated that the defendant responded that he was immediately "driving to New Jersey (company headquarters) to discuss this property." The plaintiff's records denote a "mailing address change" on the same date as this telephone call with the defendant.3
According to the plaintiff's records, the next communication was initiated by one of the plaintiff's representatives to the defendant's cell phone in February, 2009, "to find out what the status is of his parent company taking over this service going back to June, 2008." The record indicates that the defendant believed that "they already had" done so and provided a meter number for the account on which they were purportedly paying the bills. The record noted that "they have new billing in ‘his' name but have not [received] bills as [the plaintiff has] not processed this move." Dupuis explained that bills are not sent to the new customer until the plaintiff has processed a "move in order," which results in the closing of the current account and the substitution of the new account holder. The defendant identified Eastern Poultry of Brooklyn, New York as the "parent company" and "another company: Pedigree Chicks," with a New Jersey address. The representative noted that the defendant was going to contact the "parent company" one more time. There is no indication in the records that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kinity v. US Bancorp
...hidden, subjective or secret intention of the parties" (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Proctor, 324 Conn. 245, 267–68, 152 A.3d 470 (2016) ("We have recognized, consistent with the objective theory of contracts, that [t]he making of a contract ......
-
Richard Mfg. Co. v. Richard
...RMCO and Mr. Richard as to whether this form was the designated writing called for by the SERP. See Conn. Light and Power Co. v. Proctor , 324 Conn. 245, 259, 152 A.3d 470 (2016) ("A contract implied in fact, like an express contract, depends on actual agreement.") (internal quotation marks......
-
Tarpon Bay Partners LLC v. Zerez Holdings Corp.
...406, 356 A.2d 181 (1974). "[T]he existence of an implied in fact contract is a question of fact." Conn. Light and Power Co. v. Proctor , 324 Conn. 245, 258, 152 A.3d 470 (2016).Some implied contract likely existed between the parties. Without executing the definitive documentation that the ......
-
Geriatrics, Inc. v. McGee
...592. Any subsidiary factual determinations by the trial court, however, are reviewed for clear error. Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Proctor , 324 Conn. 245, 258–59, 152 A.3d 470 (2016). A finding is clearly erroneous (1) if there is no evidence in the record to support it, or (2) when, a......