Bailey Employment System, Inc. v. Hahn, Civ. No. B-79-210.
Citation | 545 F. Supp. 62 |
Decision Date | 26 April 1982 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. B-79-210. |
Court | United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut) |
Parties | BAILEY EMPLOYMENT SYSTEM, INC., Plaintiff, v. Clifford HAHN, et al., Defendant. |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Madeleine F. Grossman, New Haven, Conn. (Wiggin & Dana, New Haven, Conn., of counsel), for defendant Clifford Hahn.
Dion W. Moore, Bridgeport, Conn. (Pullman, Comley, Bradley & Reeves, Bridgeport, Conn., Donald Wetmore, Wetmore & Martin, Huntington, Conn., of counsel), for plaintiff Bailey Employment System, Inc.
In May, 1979, Bailey Employment Systems, Inc. commenced this action seeking payment of a $10,000 note. The defendant, Clifford Hahn, admitting the existence and execution of the note, counterclaimed against Bailey and its president Sheldon Leighton alleging misrepresentation and fraud as well as violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA"), Conn.Gen.Stat. § 42-110a et seq., by Bailey in connection with the sale of a franchise to Hahn.
The case was tried to this Court on September 25 and 26, 1980, and the Court subsequently ruled that Hahn had failed to demonstrate a claim for misrepresentation and fraud. With regard to Hahn's claim under the Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Court, relying on Naylor v. Case and McGrath, 585 F.2d 557 (2d Cir. 1978), in which the Second Circuit ordered this Court to abstain from interpreting CUTPA in the absence of state judicial authority, declined to rule on the CUTPA claims. (Memorandum of Decision, December 12, 1980, pp. 1-2). Consequently judgment was entered for Bailey on the original complaint.
Hahn appealed this ruling to the Second Circuit, Bailey Employment System v. Hahn, 655 F.2d 473 (2d Cir. 1981). The Court of Appeals, distinguishing Naylor, supra, remanded the case to this Court with instructions to construe CUTPA despite the lack of Connecticut authority, and to apply the statute to the facts adduced at trial. Id. at 478. The Court of Appeals, noting § 110b(b) of CUTPA,1 directed that, in interpreting the state statute this Court should be guided by rulings of the Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts respecting § 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA)2 and by relevant cases from other states as well as by existing Connecticut authority. It is to that task that the Court now applies itself.
The Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act provides in pertinent part:
Conn.Gen.Stat. § 42-110b.
The statute prohibits any "person" from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any "trade or commerce." The terms "person" and "trade or commerce" are defined very broadly:
Conn.Gen.Stat. § 42-110a.
A franchise, as a form of license or privilege to do business under another's name or pursuant to another's marketing plan or system,3 is certainly a "commodity or thing of value". Thus, the sale of a franchise would appear to clearly fall within the statutory definition of "trade or commerce." Bailey, as a corporation engaged in business, as well as its president, Sheldon Leighton, co-defendant on the counterclaim, equally clearly are encompassed within CUTPA's definition of "person."4
Subsequent to the trial in this case, the Connecticut Supreme Court construed CUTPA for the first time in Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corp., 43 Conn.L.J.No. 3 at p. 14, ___ Conn. ___, 440 A.2d 810 (July 21, 1981). Ruling that the Act is remedial and goes beyond the scope of common law actions for fraud and misrepresentation, the highest court of Connecticut stated:
Cf. F. T. C. v. Sperry & Hutchinson, 405 U.S. 233, 243-44, 92 S.Ct. 898, 904-905, 31 L.Ed.2d 170 (1972), (the unfair trade practices condemned by § 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act are not confined to those that are illegal under the common law.)
Paiva v. Vaneck Heights Construction Co., 159 Conn. 512, 514, 271 A.2d 69 (1970). In addition, the misrepresentation generally must relate to an existing or past fact.5 Id.
In contrast the Connecticut Supreme Court has established in Hinchliffe, supra, that a party alleging a violation of CUTPA need not prove that he relied on the representation, nor that it was a basis of the bargain:
Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corp., supra, 43 Conn.L.J.No. 3 at 17, ___ Conn. at ___, 440 A.2d 810. See also Slaney v. Westwood Auto, Inc., 366 Mass. 688, 322 N.E.2d 768 (1975); (Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts similarly construing the Massachusetts unfair practices law which in substance is identical to CUTPA).
In addition, federal precedents have established that for a representation to be unlawfully deceptive, it is not necessary that the seller have intended to deceive. See, e.g., Porter & Dietsch Inc. v. F. T. C., 605 F.2d 294, 308-9 (7th Cir. 1979); Beneficial Corp. v. F. T. C., 542 F.2d 611, 617 (3d Cir. 1976), cert. denied 430 U.S. 983, 97 S.Ct. 1679, 52 L.Ed.2d 377 (1977); F. T. C. v. Sterling Drug, 317 F.2d 669, 674 (2d Cir. 1963); Gimbel Bros. v. F. T. C., 116 F.2d 578, 579 (2d Cir. 1941).
Moreover, federal courts have held that a statement which is literally true may, nonetheless, be unlawfully deceptive.
"
F. T. C. v. Sterling Drug, Inc., supra, 317 F.2d at 675 (citations omitted).
Finally, the FTC and federal courts, as well as a number of state courts, have ruled that a failure to disclose pertinent information may be as deceptive an act as an affirmative misrepresentation, and that it is often necessary for a seller to disclose unfavorable facts to avoid misleading purchasers. See, e.g., Simeon Management Corp. v. F. T. C., 579 F.2d 1137, 1145 (9th Cir. 1978); Warner-Lambert Co. v. F. T. C., 562 F.2d 749, 759 (D.C.Cir.1977); GerRo-Mar v. F. T. C., 518 F.2d 33 (2d Cir. 1975). See also Heller v. Silverbranch Construction Corp., 376 Mass. 621, 382 N.E.2d 1065 (1978); Slaney v. Westwood Auto, Inc., 366 Mass. 688, 322 N.E.2d 768 (1975).
CUTPA directs the courts of Connecticut to be guided by the interpretations given to the Federal Trade Commission Act by the F. T. C. and the Federal courts. This Court, sitting in diversity, is bound like any other state court to follow the statute's directives. That being so, the Court turns now to apply these general principles to the facts of this case, and in particular, to defendant's counterclaim which alleges that plaintiff-corporation and its president engaged in unfair and deceptive practices in violation of the Connecticut unfair practices statute.
A review of the record indicates that there were a number of misleading statements of fact and failures to disclose pertinent...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Morgan v. Air Brook Limousine, Inc.
...states, in construing their own deceptive practices legislation, have come to the same conclusion. Thus, in Bailey Employment System, Inc. v. Hahn, 545 F.Supp. 62 (D.Conn.1982), aff'd without op. 723 F.2d 895 (2 Cir.1983), the court determined that since a franchise was a form of license or......
-
Cheshire Mortg. Service, Inc. v. Montes
...for a representation to be unlawfully deceptive, it is not necessary that the seller intended to deceive. Bailey Employment System, Inc. v. Hahn, [545 F.Supp. 62, 67 (D.Conn.1982), aff'd, 723 F.2d 895 (2d Cir.1983) ]; see also Porter & Dietsch, Inc. v. F.T.C., 605 F.2d 294, 308-309 (7th Cir......
-
Normand Josef Enterprises, Inc. v. Connecticut Nat. Bank, 14901
...declared unlawful by federal authorities to be nevertheless unlawful under CUTPA.' (Emphasis added.) Bailey Employment System, Inc. v. Hahn, 545 F.Supp. 62, 71 (D.Conn.1982)." Caldor, Inc. v. Heslin, 215 Conn. 590, 598, 577 A.2d 1009 (1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1088, 111 S.Ct. 966, 112 L......
-
Barco Auto Leasing Corp. v. House
...awarded the defendants punitive damages of $19,193.52, which was twice the amount of their actual damages. See Bailey Employment System v. Hahn, 545 F.Supp. 62, 73 (D.Conn.1982). The defendants' CUTPA counterclaim is not an issue here because the defendants have not appealed from the judgme......
-
Table of Cases
...Enters. v. Baskin & Sears, Bus. Franchise Guide (CCH) ¶ 8071 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1983) 172 n.126 Bailey Employment Sys., Inc. v. Hahn, 545 F. Supp. 62 (D. Conn. 1982), aff’d per curiam , 723 F.2d 895 (2d Cir. 1983) 169 n.117 Bailey’s, Inc. v. Windsor Am., Inc., 948 F.2d 1018, 1030 (6th Cir.......
-
Table of Cases
...Enters. v. Baskin & Sears, Bus. Franchise Guide (CCH) ¶ 8071 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1983) 160 n.110 Bailey Employment Sys., Inc. v. Hahn, 545 F. Supp. 62 (D. Conn. 1982), aff’d per curiam , 723 F.2d 895 (2d Cir. 1983) 158 n.101 Bailey’s, Inc. v. Windsor Am., Inc., 948 F.2d 1018, 1030 (6th Cir.......
-
Franchise Registration
...under state “baby FTC” acts that prohibit unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce. See Bailey Employment Sys., Inc. v. Hahn, 545 F. Supp. 62 (D. Conn. 1982), aff’d per curiam , 723 F.2d 895 (2d Cir. 1983) (unpublished opinion). The FTC’s enforcement powers include obtaining civi......
-
Franchise Registration
...under state “baby FTC” acts that prohibit unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce. See Bailey Employment Sys., Inc. v. Hahn, 545 F. Supp. 62 (D. Conn. 1982), aff’d per curiam , 723 F.2d 895 (2d Cir. 1983) (unpublished opinion). The FTC’s enforcement powers include obtaining civi......