Lees Curtain Co., Inc. v. Scinto
Citation | 13 Conn.App. 822,538 A.2d 1063 |
Decision Date | 29 February 1988 |
Docket Number | No. 5443,5443 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | LEES CURTAIN COMPANY, INC. v. Robert D. SCINTO et al. |
Robert K. Lesser, with whom, on the brief, was Toby M. Schaffer, Bridgeport, for appellants (defendants).
Clifford J. Grandjean, Hartford, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before SPALLONE, DALY and NORCOTT, JJ.
The defendants challenge a judgment rendered by the trial court ordering specific performance of a lease provision with an option to purchase. Although the defendants list five issues on appeal, this appeal boils down to whether the facts found by the trial court were erroneous. We find no error.
The availability of the remedy of specific performance depends upon the evaluation of equitable consideration. Frumento v. Mezzanotte, 192 Conn. 606, 615, 473 A.2d 1193 (1984); Ecos Corporation v. Conlon, 4 Conn.App. 572, 574, 495 A.2d 1111 (1985).
Nulman's Appeal from Probate, 13 Conn.App. 811, 812, 537 A.2d 495 (1988).
Our review of the record indicates that the factual findings of the court are fully supported by the evidence and its legal conclusions are legally and logically sound.
There is no error.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Natural Harmony, Inc. v. Normand
...ruling of the trial court is legally and logically sound. See Smith v. Hevro Realty Corporation, supra; Lees Curtain Co. v. Scinto, 13 Conn.App. 822, 822-23, 538 A.2d 1063 (1988). There is no error and the case is remanded to the trial court, Stengel, J., with direction to set the date of t......