Barrett Builders v. Miller

• Citation: 215 Conn. 316,576 A.2d 455
• Decision Date: 12 June 1990
• Docket Number: No. 13816,13816
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Parties: BARRETT BUILDERS v. Rhoda MILLER.

Page 455

576 A.2d 455

215 Conn. 316

BARRETT BUILDERS v. Rhoda MILLER.

No. 13816.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued Feb. 6 and May 1, 1990.

Decided June 12, 1990.

Santo M. Matarazzo, Hartford, for appellant (plaintiff).

Richard M. Leibert, Hartford, for appellee (defendant).

Before PETERS, C.J., and SHEA, CALLAHAN, GLASS, COVELLO, HULL and SANTANIELLO, JJ.

PETERS, Chief Justice.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether a contractor who has failed to comply with the requirements of the Home Improvement Act; General Statutes § 20-418 et seq.; can nonetheless recover in quasi contract by demonstrating unjust enrichment ¹ on the part of the homeowner for whom the contractor has performed work. The plaintiff, Barrett Builders, brought an action in three counts against the defendant, Rhoda Miller, alleging its right to recover for the value of goods and services represented by home improvements at the defendant's home. The plaintiff has not pressed the first and third counts, alleging breach of contract and recovery on a dishonored check. On the second count, sounding in quasi contract, the trial court ruled in favor of the defendant on her motion for summary judgment and subsequently rendered judgment in her favor. We transferred to this court, pursuant to Practice Book § 4023, the plaintiff's appeal from the adverse judgment on count two of its complaint and now affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The plaintiff's complaint reveals the following. The parties entered into a written contract on March 24, 1988, for the acquisition and installation of kitchen cabinets and counter tops at the defendant's home. The contract defined the work to be done as ripping out old cabinets and tops and installing new ones, without providing any specification of size, materials or construction detail. ² It indicated no date for performance. It did specify, however, that the total contract price of $9783 would be payable in three installments, a one third down payment, another one third payment upon installation of the cabinets, and the remaining one third when the work was completed.

The plaintiff received the down payment as agreed. After it had begun work at the defendant's home on May 1, 1988, it received, on May 9, 1988, a check for the second installment in the amount of $3390. When the plaintiff discovered that the defendant had stopped payment on this check, the plaintiff stopped his work. The plaintiff alleged that the work was substantially completed at that time. The plaintiff claimed, in count two of its complaint, that the reasonable value of his labor and materials was $6783, the amount unpaid under the contract.

The defendant's answer and special defenses alleged, inter alia, that the plaintiff had failed to provide the defendant with a written contract containing the entire agreement, as required by General Statutes § 20-429. ³ The defendant also alleged, in her counterclaim, that the cabinets installed by the plaintiff were inferior to the samples provided at the time of the contract negotiation.

The trial court did not address the underlying factual dispute between the parties in its memorandum of decision on the defendant's motion for summary judgment. It noted that the plaintiff had admitted that its contract with the defendant was unenforceable under § 20-429. Relying on the ruling of the Appellate Court in Sidney v. DeVries, 18 Conn.App. 581, 588-89, 559 A.2d 1145 (1989), the court concluded that the statute precluded a quantum meruit theory of recovery even as an implied exception to the requirement that home improvement contracts be in writing. It accordingly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

The issue in this appeal is whether the trial court's ruling in favor of the defendant homeowner mistakenly interpreted § 20-429 to bar recovery in quasi contract for home improvements when the contractor has failed to comply with the statute's written contract requirement. The plaintiff contractor contends that there is no indication, either in the express language of the statute or in the legislative history of its enactment, that the legislature intended the Home Improvement Act to preclude its restitutionary cause of action. Since it would have been able to resort to these theories of recovery at common law, the plaintiff argues that the statute should not be construed to abrogate those remedies in the absence of a clear legislative mandate. We are not persuaded.

The starting point for our analysis is Caulkins v. Petrillo, 200 Conn. 713, 513 A.2d 43 (1986), in which we considered the ability of a contractor who has failed to comply with § 20-429 to recover for completed home improvements. In Caulkins, we rejected the contractor's argument that we should imply an exception to the written contract requirement of the Home Improvement Act, analogous to the law allowing recovery for partial or full performance under an oral contract unenforceable under the statute of frauds, when the contractor has fully performed its obligations under the agreement. Id., at 718-19, 513 A.2d 43. After reviewing the language of the statute and its legislative history, we held that the provisions of § 20-429 are mandatory rather than permissive, and concluded that, in contrast to the statute of frauds, the Home Improvement Act "does not provide an exception to the requirement that home improvement contracts be in writing." Id., at 717-18, 513 A.2d 43.

The plaintiff nonetheless maintains that our conclusion in Caulkins is not dispositive of the issue in this appeal. According to the plaintiff, Caulkins held only that an oral contract for home improvements is unenforceable notwithstanding partial or full performance of the contractor's obligations. That holding, it argues, does not address the availability of recovery in quasi contract, a cause of action that does not depend upon the existence of a valid agreement. In support of this contention, the plaintiff emphasizes that the statute provides only that "[n]o home improvement contract shall be valid unless it is in writing...." (Emphasis added.) General Statutes § 20-429(a)(1). The plaintiffs argue that the statute's specific reference to the invalidity of the "contract," in conjunction with the legislature's use of broader language precluding "any action" in the case of the statute governing real estate brokers; General Statutes § 20-325a(a); compels the conclusion that the Home Improvement Act does not bar recovery in quasi contract.

While it is true that the contractor in Caulkins argued only that he should be permitted recovery under a theory analogous to the law governing the statute of frauds, and that we therefore did not specifically address the availability of recovery in quasi contract, the difference between those theories of recovery is insignificant for the purposes of the Home Improvement Act. Recovery for partial or full performance of a contract that is unenforceable under the statute of frauds is based upon principles of restitution. See 3 Restatement (Second), Contracts § 375 (1981); Restatement, Restitution § 108(d) (1937); 2 G. Palmer, Law of Restitution (1978) § 6.1, pp. 2-3, and § 6.4, pp. 29-32. "It is hornbook law that a party whose agreement is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds or because of indefiniteness is generally entitled to restitution." Montanaro Bros. Builders, Inc. v. Snow, 190 Conn. 481, 488, 460 A.2d 1297 (1983). The plaintiff's quasi contract claim in this case is likewise restitutionary. Burns v. Koellmer, 11 Conn.App. 375, 384, 527 A.2d 1210 (1987); G. Palmer, "History of Restitution in Anglo-American Law," c. 3, vol. X, Restitution--Unjust Enrichment and Negotiorum Gestio, International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law (P. Schlechtriem Chief Ed.) pp. 32-33 (1989). Neither form of recovery is an action on the contract. See 1 Restatement (Second), Contracts § 141, comment (a) (1981). Our conclusion in Caulkins that the legislature "intended no exceptions" to the written contract requirement, even for restitution when a contractor has fully performed its obligations under the invalid agreement, thus applies with equal force to the plaintiff's claim for quasi contractual recovery in this case.

Furthermore, it is no answer that the Home Improvement Act does not explicitly preclude quasi contract remedies. While the legislature has employed broader language in the real estate broker's statute, that statute encompasses commercial as well as consumer transactions. Moreover, the legislature has also on occasion been explicit in its desire to preserve common law remedies. The parental liability statute, for example, provides that "[t]he liability provided for in this section shall be in addition to and not in lieu of any other liability which may exist at law." General Statutes § 52-572(c). The fact that the legislature did not use the "any action" terminology of the real estate broker's statute is thus not conclusive of the issue.

It bears emphasis that the Home Improvement Act "was passed for the protection of the public." Caulkins v. Petrillo, supra, 200 Conn. at 720, 513 A.2d 43. As we have consistently reaffirmed, remedial legislation must be construed liberally; Mack Financial Corporation v. Crossley, 209 Conn. 163, 166, 550 A.2d 303 (1988); Borzencki v. Estate of Stakum, 195 Conn. 368, 383, 489 A.2d 341 (1985); Heslin v. Connecticut Law Clinic of Trantolo & Trantolo, 190 Conn. 510, 520, 461 A.2d 938 (1983); and we have likewise held that the construction of consumer protection statutes is not limited by the rule that statutes in derogation of the common law must be strictly construed. Rhodes v. Hartford, 201 Conn. 89, 95, 513 A.2d 124 (1986). We therefore conclude that our decision in Caulkins that the written contract requirement of the Home Improvement Act is without exception applies also to the claims asserted in this appeal.

Even if we were to reexamine our decision in Caulkins, the...