Providence Elec. Co. v. Sutton Place, Inc.
| Decision Date | 01 June 1971 |
| Citation | 161 Conn. 242,287 A.2d 379 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 10 UCC Rep.Serv. 632 PROVIDENCE ELECTRIC COMPANY, Inc. v. SUTTON PLACE, INC., et al. |
Roger M. Sullivan, New Haven, for appellants (named defendants).
John L. Calvocoressi, Farmington, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before HOUSE, THIM, RYAN, SHAPIRO and LOISELLE, * JJ.
During the period from May, 1965, to November 5, 1965, the plaintiff Providence Electric Company supplied refrigerators, ranges and other electrical supplies to the defendant Eastern Seaboard Construction Company (Eastern), pursuant to the latter's order for use in connection with the construction and completion of apartments in Groton. At all times relevant to this action the defendant Sutton Place, Inc., (Sutton Place) was the owner of the land on which the apartments were constructed. At the time this action was instituted the sum of $6491.01 remained due to the plaintiff for the merchandise which it had furnished. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff to recover $6491.01 plus interest, for a total of $9628.29, from Eastern. Judgment was also rendered in favor of the plaintiff to recover $6491.01 plus interest of $1255.97, a total of $7746.98, from Sutton Place. From the judgments rendered, only the defendant Sutton Place has appealed.
The complaint is in seven counts. The case went to trial on three causes of action against Sutton Place: (1) unjust enrichment; (2) conspiracy to defraud, or misrepresentation; (3) conspiracy by concealment of assets. The latter two causes of action, however, were withdrawn at the conclusion of the trial. The only cause which remained, as against Sutton Place, was the claim of unjust enrichment.
The unchallenged pertinent findings of fact reveal the following: The named plaintiff and Eastern are Rhode Island corporations. Sutton Place is a Connecticut corporation. On or about September 28, 1964, Eastern, as the general contractor, agreed to construct the apartments for Sutton Place. Eastern ordered the merchandise from the plaintiff, delivery was completed, and the plaintiff billed Eastern for the merchandise, looking to Eastern for payment. The refrigerators, ranges and electrical supplies were thereafter installed in the apartments by Eastern. Eastern paid the plaintiff for some of the merchandise, but there remained, at the time of the trial, an unpaid balance of $6491.01, plus interest. In order to finance the construction of the apartments, Sutton Place executed a construction loan mortgage to the Danielson Federal Savings Bank and Loan Association in the amount of $222,000. Sutton Place has rented, to various tenants, apartments in which the plaintiff's merchandise has been installed.
In an attack on the finding Sutton Place claims that the court erred: (1) In finding without evidence the material facts specified in certain paragraphs of the finding; (2) in finding in language of doubtful meaning the fact in one paragraph; and (3) in concluding that Sutton Place was enriched unjustly by appliances which the plaintiff supplied to Eastern, the general contractor.
The court found that the loan from the Danielson Federal Savings Bank and Loan Association to Sutton Place did not cover the entire cost of construction of the apartments. This finding is in doubtful language and cannot stand. The total 'package price' for the land, apartment buildings, engineering and architectural services and legal costs with respect to the closing of the construction permanent mortgage was $302,900. The $222,000 loan from the Danielson Federal Savings Bank and Loan Association was to finance only the construction of the apartments. Separate notes and mortgages were authorized to cover the $35,900 for the purchase of the land and the $45,000 for the engineering firm. There was no evidence to suggest that the construction loan was insufficient to cover the entire cost of constructing the apartments, including the plaintiff's materials. No evidence shows that the costs exceeded the allotments for any facet of this transaction. The court further found that Sutton Place did not pay Eastern for the materials furnished by the plaintiff. This finding is not supported by any evidence, and, thus, cannot stand. We conclude that the appendices and the record do not support the trial court's conclusion that Eastern has not been paid by Sutton Place for the goods originally supplied by the plaintiff. We now must determine whether the liability of Sutton Place, based as it is on unjust enrichment, can stand absent those conclusions.
Unjust...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Flanagan
...and good conscience for one to retain a benefit which has come to him at the expense of another." Providence Elec. Co. v. Sutton Place, Inc., 161 Conn. 242, 246, 287 A.2d 379 (1971) (internal quotation omitted). In determining whether a party has been unjustly enriched at the expense of ano......
-
James G. Davis Constr. Corp. v. FTJ, Inc.
...not liable for that benefit to another party under a theory of unjust enrichment" (citation omitted)); Providence Elec. Co. v. Sutton Place, Inc. , 161 Conn. 242, 287 A.2d 379, 382 (1971) (finding that if the defendant "has paid its contractor ... for those appliances, then the enrichment, ......
-
New York Annual Conference of United Methodist Church v. Fisher
...543 (1977); Novella v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 163 Conn. 552, 561-65, 316 A.2d 394 (1972); Providence Electric Co. v. Sutton Place, Inc., 161 Conn. 242, 246, 287 A.2d 379 (1971); Jensen v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 158 Conn. 251, 261-62, 259 A.2d 598 (1969); Collens v. New Cana......
-
Meaney v. Connecticut Hospital Assn., Inc.
...Cecio Bros., Inc. v. Greenwich, [supra, 156 Conn. 564-65]." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Providence Electric Co. v. Sutton Place, Inc., 161 Conn. 242, 246, 287 A.2d 379 (1971); Hartford Whalers Hockey Club v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co., 231 Conn. 276, 282, 649 A.2d 518 (1994). "`Unju......