New Haven Tile & Floor Covering Co. v. Roman
| Decision Date | 23 January 1951 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | NEW HAVEN TILE & FLOOR COVERING CO. v. ROMAN et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Milton A. Bernblum, New Haven, with whom were Marvin C. Gold, New Haven, and, on the brief, Annette E. P. Gold, New Haven, for appellant (plaintiff).
John J. Kinney, Jr., New Haven, for appellees (defendants).
Before BROWN, C. J., and JENNINGS, BALDWIN, INGLIS and O'SULLIVAN, JJ.
The plaintiff brought this action to recover of the defendants $195 as liquidated damages under an alleged contract providing that the plaintiff make certain repairs to a house in Branford for which the defendants would pay $650. The complaint further alleged a default under the contract by the defendants' refusal to let the plaintiff do the work. The court rendered judgment for the defendants and the plaintiff has appealed.
The essential facts found by the court are not subject to correction and may be thus summarized: Joseph Sabo was the plaintiff's agent for negotiating contracts to provide materials and labor in the repair of houses. On August 26, 1949, Sabo called at the home of the defendants, which was owned by the defendant Valentine Roman, to seek a contract for the plaintiff to repair the house. His conversation with her and her daughters, the defendants Jane and Dorothy, eventuated in his then talking with another daughter, Felicia, on the telephone, who told him to leave an estimate for the job with the defendants. After this telephone conversation, Sabo, using the plaintiff's printed form entitled 'Estimate and Agreement,' filled in some of its blank spaces and struck out parts of the printed matter. After he had made these changes, the gist of the provisions of the paper, exhibit A, which might be construed as purporting on its face to be a contract, was that the plaintiff would furnish the necessary labor and materials for the repairs and improvements specified, at the agreed price of $650; that, upon breach of the agreement by the defendants at any time, the plaintiff would be entitled to 30 per cent of this amount as liquidated damages; and that the terms as written would not be varied by any verbal representation or promise by any agent of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's acceptance is indicated by the signature of Sabo affixed under its name as printed at the bottom of the paper, and its approval, by the signature of another agent appearing at the left. At Sabor's request the names of the three defendants were appended below the body of the instrument immediately over the printed designation 'Home Owner,' though the defendant Dorothy signed only as a witness. The conversation between the defendants and Sabo concerned an estimate for the contemplated work, and both they and he understood that, before any agreement could be entered into, the approval of Felicia, who was in charge of the work that had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woodling v. Garrett Corp., s. 208
...of a disclaimer such as that signed by Woodling provides no exception to this general rule. See New Haven Tile & Floor Covering Co. v. Roman, 137 Conn. 462, 78 A.2d 336, 337 (1951) (even though written agreement stated that terms could not "be varied by any verbal representation or promise,......
-
Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. Mauro, MERRITT-CHAPMAN
...which does not vary the terms of the writing. Harris v. Clinton, 142 Conn. 204, 210, 112 A.2d 885; New Haven Tile & Floor Covering Co. v. Roman, 137 Conn. 462, 464, 78 A.2d 336. However, in order for a parol agreement to be collateral to a written agreement, the governing question is 'wheth......
-
Pelletier v. Sordoni/Skanska Construction Co.
...law does not make a contract when the parties intend none...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) New Haven Tile & Floor Covering Co. v. Roman, 137 Conn. 462, 464, 78 A.2d 336 (1951). Sordoni was entitled to judgment as a matter of law that the orientation and procedures manual did not cre......
-
Juengel Const. Co., Inc. v. Mt. Etna, Inc., 42327
...on National's consent to subcontractors, they could have explicitly so provided. See, e. g., New Haven Tile and Floor Covering Co. v. Roman, 137 Conn. 462, 78 A.2d 336 (1951) (where builder and homeowner stipulated that before they could establish any agreement, approval of third party who ......