Camp v. Cohn
| Decision Date | 12 May 1964 |
| Citation | 201 A.2d 187,151 Conn. 623 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Alice S. CAMP v. Alix COHN et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Sabino P. Tamborra, Norwich, with whom, on the brief, was Marvin N. Horwitz, Norwich, for appellant (named defendant).
Leo J. McNamara, Norwich, with whom, on the bried, was Allyn L. Brown, Jr., Norwich, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before KING, C. J., MURPHY, ALCORN and COMLEY, JJ., and HOUSE, Acting justice.
On June 29, 1960, the plaintiff contracted to purchase from the named defendant, whom we shall call the defendant, a tract of land with the buildings thereon. The agreement, drawn by the defendant's attorney, stated that time was of the essence, and in it the defendant agreed, inter alia, to clear the outbuildings and the land within a radius of 500 feet of the main dwelling of all trash by 'no later than September 1, 1960.' Twenty-five hundred dollars was deposited with the defendant's attorney 'to be held in escrow to insure * * * [the defendant's] faithful performance of * * * [the] agreement.' The agreement recited that '[i]n the event that * * * [the defendant] fails to comply with this agreement, then on Sept. 1st, 1960, the articles remaining in the outbuildings and on the premises as above outlined, shall become the property of the Buyer, and the Seller's attorney will forfeit to the Buyer the sum of $2500.00 which he is then holding in escrow.'
Alleging a breach of the agreement, the plaintiff brought this action against the defendant and his attorney, claiming liquidated damages of $2500 from the defendant because of his failure to remove the trash by September 1 as agreed and damages from the defendant's attorney for a breach of the escrow agreement. The action against the attorney was withdrawn, and a count was added to the complaint seeking recovery of actual damages from the defendant. The defendant pleaded prevention of performance. A counterclaim is not in issue on this appeal. The court rendered judgment for the plaintiff and awarded damages of $2500. The defendant has appealed, claiming that the portion of the agreement providing for the payment of $2500 called for an unenforceable penalty rather than liquidated damages, that the agreement allowed him all of September 1 in which to perform, and that the plaintiff, having refused to extend the time for performance, is barred from a recovery of actual damages.
The finding is not subject to any material correction. The essential facts may be briefly summarized. The parties made the agreement, the material portions of which have been quoted. At the time of the negotiations there was a large amount of trash in and about the buildings and on much of the land. The photographs in evidence confirm the trial court's observation that the premises looked like a dump. Time was of the essence in having the premises cleared of the trash. When title was transferred, the plaintiff paid a substantial amount in cash, $2500 of which was to be held by the defendant's attorney in accordance with the escrow agreement. The $2500 was a reasonable estimate of the expense to the plaintiff of removing the trash in the event the defendant failed to do so. By the escrow agreement the parties intended to liquidate the damages in the event of the defendant's default. Neither the plaintiff nor anyone representing her prevented the defendant from clearing the premises through September 1, but, nevertheless, he left vast quantities of trash on the premises on that date. This finding disposes of the defendant's claim that, although the contract...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tatum v. Morton, Civ. A. No. 398-72.
...to seek zoning variance to mitigate damages where land seller represented that the property conformed to zoning laws); Camp v. Cohn, 151 Conn. 623, 201 A.2d 187 (1964) (no duty to extend time of performance of contract to mitigate damages where time was of the essence); Eastern Sportswear C......
-
Town of New Milford v. Standard Demolition Servs., Inc.
...damages clause operates as a bar to the recovery of all actual or consequential damages for breach of the contract; Camp v. Cohn , 151 Conn. 623, 626, 201 A.2d 187 (1964) ; parties to a contract may choose to narrow the scope of their liquidated damages clause by clearly expressing that int......
-
Fisher v. First Stamford Bank and Trust Co.
...upon Fisher, at the expense of his own interests, to make an expenditure in order to minimize the Bank's damages. See Camp v. Cohn, 151 Conn. 623, 627, 201 A.2d 187 (1964). At the time of the breach, there was a serious risk that negotiation for the sale of defendant's assets to the People'......
-
Kakalik v. Bernardo
...of such an intention must be given effect. 6 Williston, Contracts (3d Ed.) § 846; 3A Corbin, Contracts § 715; Camp v. Cohn, 151 Conn. 623, 625, 201 A.2d 187 (1964). It is not essential to phrase the provision in haec verba. "Any words which show that the intention of the parties is that tim......
-
TABLE OF CASES
...2011 WL 1759804 (Conn. Super. Ct. Mar. 9, 2011) 1-8:1, 1-9:1 Cammarata v. Guerrera, 148 Conn. App. 743 (2014) 8-2:2.2 Camp v. Cohn, 151 Conn. 623 (1964) 9-3 Caro v. Meerbergen, No. FSTCV085009523S, 2011 WL 1565976 (Conn. Super. Ct. Mar. 29, 2011) 1-7:1.1, 1-7:3.1 Carrier Corp. v. Home Ins. ......
-
CHAPTER 9 - 9-3 FAILURE TO MITIGATE DAMAGES
...the duty to mitigate damages can be specially pled. Whalen v. Gathoni, 2010 WL 816995 (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 8, 2010).[8] Camp v. Cohn, 151 Conn. 623, 627 (1964). See also Defusco v. Schweitzer, 1993 WL 385021 (Conn. Super. Ct. Sept. 14, 1993) ("[a]lthough the plaintiff may have a duty to p......