BEUCLER v. Lloyd
| Decision Date | 26 April 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 17260.,17260. |
| Citation | 273 Conn. 475,870 A.2d 468 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Robert BEUCLER et al. v. Michael J. LLOYD et al. |
Robert W. Smith, for the appellants (defendants).
Scott R. McCarthy, New Milford, for the appellees (plaintiffs).
SULLIVAN, C.J., and NORCOTT, KATZ, PALMER and ZARELLA, Js.
The defendants, Michael J. Lloyd and James Lloyd, doing business as J.M. Company, appeal, following our grant of certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court reversing the judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiffs, Robert Beucler and Lori Beucler. See Beucler v. Lloyd, 83 Conn.App. 731, 733, 851 A.2d 358 (2004). The Appellate Court concluded that the written notice provision of the construction contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants modified the warranties created by General Statutes §§ 47-1171 and 47-1182 and, therefore, was inoperative. Beucler v. Lloyd, supra, at 739, 851 A.2d 358. Accordingly, the defendants were not entitled to raise the plaintiffs' failure to comply with the notice provision as a special defense to the plaintiffs' action alleging, inter alia, breach of contract and breach of the express and implied new home warranties created by §§ 47-117 and 47-118. We granted the defendants' petition for certification to appeal limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the notice requirement in the parties' construction contract did not comport with the plaintiffs' warranty rights under the New Home Warranties Act, General Statutes § 47-116 et seq.?" Beucler v. Lloyd, 271 Conn. 913, 913-14, 859 A.2d 567 (2004).
After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.
The appeal is dismissed.
1. General Statutes § 47-117 provides: "(a) Express warranties by a vendor are created as follows: (1) Any written affirmation of fact or promise which relates to the improvement and is made a part of the basis of the bargain between the vendor and the purchaser shall create an express warranty that the improvement conforms to such affirmation or promise; (2) any written description of the improvement, including plans and specifications thereof which is made a part of the basis of the bargain between the vendor and the purchaser shall create an express warranty that the improvement conforms to such description; and (3) any sample or model which is made a part of the basis of the bargain between the vendor and the purchaser shall create an express warranty that the improvement conforms substantially to such sample or model.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stamford Hosp. v. Schwartz
...of fact." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Beucler v. Lloyd , 83 Conn. App. 731, 735, 851 A.2d 358 (2004), appeal dismissed, 273 Conn. 475, 870 A.2d 468 (2005). In a contract action, findings of fact should be overturned only when they are clearly erroneous. See Pomarico v. Gary Construc......
-
Winthrop House Ass'n v. Brookside Elm Ltd. Partns.
...§ 47-1,18(d) (implied warranties);2 see also Beucler v. Lloyd, 83 Conn.App. 731, 737, 851 A.2d 358 (2004), cert. dismissed, 273 Conn. 475, 870 A.2d 468 (2005); Cafro v. Brophy, 62 Conn. App. 113, 123, 774 A.2d 206 (2001). Indeed, as the Connecticut Appellate Court recently noted, "[t]he pla......
-
Silver Hill Hosp., Inc. v. Kessler
...finder]." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Beucler v. Lloyd , 83 Conn. App. 731, 735, 851 A.2d 358 (2004), appeal dismissed, 273 Conn. 475, 870 A.2d 468 (2005). With those principles in mind, we turn to the claims presented in this appeal.I We begin with the defendant's claim that the fa......
-
Shea v. Lovley Development, Inc., No. CV 04-4001809 S (CT 7/25/2005)
...or modification." (Emphasis in original.) Beucler v. Lloyd, 83 Conn.App. 731, 737, 851 A.2d 358 (2004), cert. dismissed, 273 Conn. 475, 870 A.2d 468 (2005). In Beucler, a provision in the sales agreement limited the time during which the defendant's express warranty would be effective. The ......