Ciarleglio v. Benedict & Co., Inc.

• Decision Date: 26 November 1940
• Parties: CIARLEGLIO v. BENEDICT & CO., Inc.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

16 A.2d 593

127 Conn. 291

CIARLEGLIO v. BENEDICT & CO., Inc.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

November 26, 1940

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Patrick B O'Sullivan, Judge.

Action by Gessomina Ciarleglio against Benedict & Company Incorporated, to recover alleged overcharges on the sale of gasoline made under a written contract. From a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant appeals.

No error.

Harry P. Lander, of New Haven, for appellant (defendant).

W. H Burland, of New Haven, for appellee (plaintiff).

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and AVERY, BROWN, JENNINGS, and ELLS, JJ.

ELLS, Judge.

This appeal concerns the interpretation of a written contract whereby the defendant agreed to sell and the plaintiff to buy gasoline for five and one-half cents under the seller's posted retail price on third rate gas, subject to the proviso that this price would not be less than one and one-half cents per gallon over the New York harbor price for gasoline of equal quality. The posted retail price during the period involved was twelve and one-half cents, and the New York harbor price was six and one-half cents. The plaintiff purchased considerable quantities for which she was charged eleven and one-half cents per gallon, and a small amount for which the charge was twelve cents. She paid these amounts but under protest. She continously complained that she was being overcharged, but accepted the defendant's statement that the overcharge ‘ would be fixed up.’ She continued to buy in reliance upon the defendant's assurance that the matter would be ironed out and because she did not want to be without gasoline to operate her station. The pumps belonged to the defendant. There was a price war on during this period. She sued for the claimed overcharges and was awarded judgment. The defendant appealed.

The controversy centers upon the effect of the gasoline tax. The trial court found that the posted retail price included taxes-three cents to the state and one cent to the federal government, on each gallon. This is decisive of the issue. There is no basis in the finding for such a method of posting as would permit a severance of the price of the gasoline as such from the taxes. The starting figure is the posted retail price, twelve and one-half cents, including taxes, and the contract price is five and one-half cents less, subject only to the provision that it cannot go below eight cents. Section 649c of the Cum.Sup. of 1935 requires posting of the price per gallon ‘ which * * * shall include all taxes.’ The posted retail price is a definite and logical base for the contract price, subject only to the provision regarding the New York harbor price. Under this construction the plaintiff, who presumably must sell at about the defendant's posted retail price in order to meet competition, would have a reasonable profit, while the defendant by this provision would be assured a margin above the New...