State v. Moran, 2003-804

• Citation: 151 N.H. 450,861 A.2d 763
• Decision Date: 09 September 2004
• Docket Number: No. 2003-804,2003-804
• Parties: THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE v. JAMES MORAN d/b/a EXTERIOR SOLUTIONS
• Court: Supreme Court of New Hampshire

151 N.H. 450
861 A.2d 763

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
v.
JAMES MORAN d/b/a EXTERIOR SOLUTIONS

No. 2003-804

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Argued: September 9, 2004

Opinion Issued: October 21, 2004

Kelly A. Ayotte, attorney general (Constance N. Stratton, senior assistant attorney general, on the brief and orally), for the State.

Christopher M. Johnson, chief appellate defender, of Concord, on the brief and orally, for the defendant.

NADEAU, J.

The defendant, James Moran d/b/a Exterior Solutions, appeals a conviction of violating RSA chapter 358-A (1995 & Supp. 2003), the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act (CPA), following a bench trial in Superior Court (Morrill, J.). We affirm.

The trial court could have found the following facts. On October 25, 2001, an employee of the defendant, Darryn Lawrence, entered into a contract to install siding on the home of Richard and Therese Robidoux. The

151 N.H. 451

contract specified a total price of $6,800 with $2,800 to be paid before the defendant began the job. In addition, the contract stated the work would be done sometime between March 2002 and April 2002. Finally, the Robidouxs agreed to make an initial deposit of $500 to hold the price for the spring installation, leaving $2,300 to be paid before the work began

On February 5, 2002, Lawrence called Therese Robidoux to inquire about doing the work early. The following day, when the defendant telephoned Therese for an answer, the Robidouxs agreed to have the work done early. During the conversation, the defendant requested $2,300 to buy materials before he began the job. The same day the defendant and Lawrence arrived at the Robidouxs' home to pick up a check for the amount stated. The check was made out to the defendant, at his request, and was cashed later that day. The garage doors were to be left open so the materials could be delivered there and the defendant could begin the work.

On February 7, 2002, Therese telephoned the defendant because the materials had not been delivered. In response, the defendant told Therese the siding company was out of the color she had requested but that it should be in by the end of the week. On February 8, 2002, the materials still had not been delivered. Again, Therese telephoned the defendant, who stated that he had another small job to finish before starting the siding project. Later that day, the defendant told Therese he did not have enough crew to start the job. Further attempts to contact the defendant were unsuccessful.

On March 25, 2002...