Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corp.
Decision Date | 14 February 1984 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | Lorraine HINCHLIFFE et al. v. AMERICAN MOTORS CORPORATION et al. |
Alan L. Robertson, Jr., New Britain, with whom were Jason E. Pearl, New Britain, and, on brief, Mary Gambardella, law student intern, for appellants (plaintiffs).
Philip S. Walker, Hartford, with whom were Sharon S. Tisher, Hartford, and, on brief, Barry D. Guliano, South Windsor, for appellees (named defendant et al.).
Robert B. Shapiro, Hartford, for appellee (defendant Lipman Motors, Inc.).
Before SPEZIALE, C.J., and PETERS, HEALEY, PARSKEY and GRILLO, JJ.
This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a judgment by the trial court for the defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that a motor vehicle purchased from the defendant Lipman Motors did not perform as the plaintiffs had been led to expect. The facts are fully set out in Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corporation, 184 Conn. 607, 440 A.2d 810 (1981). Originally, the action was brought in six counts but all the counts were dismissed by the trial court for the plaintiffs' failure to present a prima facie case. On appeal, this court remanded the case to the trial court for retrial on the three counts alleging breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corporation, supra. Upon retrial, the trial court rendered judgment for the defendants on each count.
The plaintiffs have appealed to this court alleging error (1) in the trial court's interpretation and application of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act; (2) in the trial court's failure to find a breach of express warranty; and (3) in the trial court's failure to find a breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
The trial court filed a lengthy and detailed memorandum discussing each of these issues. Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corporation, 39 Conn.Sup. 107, 471 A.2d 980 (1981). After examining the record on appeal and after considering the briefs of the parties and their arguments, we conclude that there is no error in the trial court's judgment ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Beverly Hills Concepts, Inc. v. Schatz and Schatz, Ribicoff and Kotkin, 15730
... ... the other." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Konover Development Corp. [247 Conn. 57] v. Zeller, 228 Conn. 206, 219, 635 A.2d 798 (1994) ... projections in this case in compliance with the standards of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and with generally accepted ... need to allege or prove the amount of the ascertainable loss." Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corp., 184 Conn. 607, 614, 440 A.2d 810 (1981), on ... ...
-
Angelsea Productions, Inc. v. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities
...A.2d 810 (1981) (use of different terms within same sentence of statute "plainly" implies different meanings intended), aff'd, 192 Conn. 252, 470 A.2d 1216 (1984); see also Plourde v. Liburdi, 207 Conn. 412, 416, 540 A.2d 1054 One final reliable guide in determining whether a statutory prov......
-
Richards v. Direct Energy Servs., LLC
...the sophisticated."); Hinchliffe v. Am. Motors Corp. , 39 Conn.Supp. 107, 120–21, 471 A.2d 980, 987 (Super. Ct. 1982), aff'd 192 Conn. 252, 470 A.2d 1216 (1984) ("The standard utilized by the court for determining whether the defendants' [promotional statement] would have a deceptive impact......
-
Capers v. Lee
...A.2d 810 (1981) (use of different terms within same sentence of statute "plainly" implies differing meanings intended), aff'd, 192 Conn. 252, 470 A.2d 1216 (1984); see also Plourde v. Liburdi, 207 Conn. 412, 416, 540 A.2d 1054 (1988). Accordingly, we conclude that the terms claim as set for......