Sprayfoam, Inc. v. Durant's Rental Centers, Inc.
| Decision Date | 23 November 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 279940,279940 |
| Court | Connecticut Superior Court |
| Parties | SPRAYFOAM, INC., et al. v. DURANT'S RENTAL CENTERS, INC. -New Britain at Hartford |
Matzkin, Krug & Danen, Waterbury, for plaintiffs.
Gerald Hecht, Danbury, for defendant.
This action arises out of a dispute over the terms of a rental agreement entered into by the parties. The named plaintiff, a corporation, rented certain equipment from the defendant. As part of the rental agreement the named plaintiff was required to provide a blank charge card (VISA) slip as security for the equipment. A dispute arose over the rental charge. The named plaintiff allegedly paid the undisputed amount, provided the disputed balance would be "discussed" by the parties. The defendant allegedly agreed. Subsequently, without notice to the named plaintiff, the defendant posted a charge against the VISA account equal to the disputed amount, $900.
The plaintiffs set forth three counts in their complaint: the first two counts allege unfair trade practices by the defendant and the third count alleges a breach of implied warranty and merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The defendant has moved to strike the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. A motion to strike is used to challenge the legal sufficiency of a pleading. Alarm Applications Co. v. Simsbury Volunteer Fire Co., 179 Conn. 541, 545, 427 A.2d 822 (1980).
The plaintiffs allege in their first count a violation of Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act, General Statutes §§ 42-110a through 42-110q inclusive (CUPTA). They claim that the defendant represented that "the sole purpose of requiring a credit card slip to be signed in blank was to provide Durant's with substitution for cash security for the equipment rented."
CUTPA is a consumer protection statute intended to provide an individual with an action more flexible and a remedy more complete than does the common law. The act is remedial in nature and is to be liberally construed. General Statutes § 42-110b(d); Murphy v. McNamara, 36 Conn.Sup. 183, 188, 416 A.2d 170 (1979). In McNamara, the court adopted (p. 189, 416 A.2d 170) the following United States Supreme Court guidelines in determining what constitutes an unfair trade practice: "(1) [W]hether the practice, without necessarily having been previously considered unlawful, offends public policy as it has been established by statut...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cheshire Mortg. Service, Inc. v. Montes
...a violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice; see, e.g., Sprayfoam, Inc. v. Durant's Rental Centers, Inc., 39 Conn.Sup. 78, 468 A.2d 951 (1983); or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy. See, e.g., Sportsmen's Boating Corporation v. H......
-
Normand Josef Enterprises, Inc. v. Connecticut Nat. Bank, 14901
... ... by showing either an actual deceptive practice; see, e.g., Sprayfoam, Inc. v. Durant's Rental Centers, Inc., 39 Conn. Supp. 78, 468 A.2d 951 ... ...
-
Web Press Services Corp. v. New London Motors, Inc.
...a violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice; see, e.g., Sprayfoam, Inc. v. Durant's Rental Centers, Inc., 39 Conn.Sup. 78, 468 A.2d 951 (1983); or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy. See, e.g., Sportsmen's Boating Corporation v. H......
-
Jacobs v. Healey Ford-Subaru, Inc.
... ... by showing either an actual deceptive practice; see, e.g., Sprayfoam, Inc. v. Durant's Rental Centers, Inc., 39 Conn.Sup. 78, 468 A.2d 951 ... ...
-
The Standard for Determining "unfair Acts or Practices" Under State Unfair Trade Practices Acts
...established by showing either an actual deceptive practice; see, e.g., Sprayfoam, Inc. v. Durant's Rental Centers, Inc., 39 Conn. Sup. 78,468 A.2d 951 (1983); or a practice amounts to a violation of public policy. See, e.g., Sportsmen's Boating Corporation v. Hensley, [192 Conn. 747, 474A.2......
-
Unfair Acts or Practices Under Cutpa - the Case for Abandoning the Obsolete Cigarette Rule and Following Modern Ftc Unfairness Policy
...121 McLaughlin Ford, 192 Conn. 558, 569, n. 15, 473 A.2d 1185, 1192. 122 203 Conn. 342, 355, 525 A.2d 57, 64 (1987). 123 39 Conn. Sup. 78, 468 A.2d 951 (1983). 124 192 Conn. 747, 474 A.2d 780 (1984). 125 Cheshire Mortgage Service v. Montes, 223 Conn. 80, 106, 612 A.2d 1130, 1144 (1992). 126......