Providing accurate, timely, and insightful legal commentary
Connectiuct Business Litigation Blog
Commentary on lawsuits and legal issues impacting Connecticut businesses. Authored by experienced business litigation attorney, Kane Bennett of Aeton Law Partners, LLP.
Unjust Enrichment In Connecticut – The Catchall When You have No Contract
The Connecticut Appellate Court’s recent decision in Schirmer v. Souza is a reminder that there are circumstances where you can still recover damages for non-payment of services even when you do not have a written contract. In Schirmer, the Appellate Court upheld an award in favor of the plaintiffs on claims of unjust enrichment concerning renovations to a residence on the defendants’ property. In a somewhat strange set of facts, the plaintiffs loaned their daughter and son-in-law money to renovate a home. The plaintiffs believed that their daughter had title to the property when the son-in-law’s parents, the defendants, actually owned the property. The son-in-law performed the renovations but went beyond the scope of the project and essentially built a new house. The defendants then sold the house after the renovations. Plaintiffs expected over $100,000 from the sale of home to cover the renovation costs and instead got nothing. Plaintiffs had no contract with the defendants, the owners of the newly constructed house. Plaintiffs sued and recovered after trial based on a theory of unjust enrichment. Unjust enrichment is an equitable remedy. It is a broad and flexible remedy when the right circumstances are present. To recover, a plaintiff must prove: The defendants were benefited The defendants unjustly did not pay the plaintiffs for the benefits The failure to pay was to the detriment of plaintiff The plaintiff lacks an available remedy under a written contract As the court noted in this case, the question becomes "did the defendant, to the detriment of someone else, obtain something of value to
Did Courtney Love Make A Good Decision To Settle Her Twitter Case?
According to various online sources and media outlets, Courtney Love has settled (or is close to settling) the Twitter lawsuit brought against her by Dawn Simorangkir. The trial was supposed to start tomorrow, and according to Amanda Bronstad at the National Law Journal, it was going to be broadcasted live. Love was reportedly going to defend the case claiming that the Twitter comments were just opinion or hyperbole. I categorized this as the "it was just a Tweet" defense. If the facts that have been reported are accurate, Love’s decision to go for a settlement was probably a good one. Love’s defense was not likely to succeed. She didn’t make isolated rambling comments. There appeared to be intent to harm Simorangkir’s reputation in business with the comments. In Connecticut, this may have amounted to defamation per se, trade libel, or commercial disparagement. Given the nature of the comments, Simorangkir might have been entitled to a damages award even if she could not show a loss of business. Simorangkir’s lawyer said Love "embarked in what is nothing short of an obsessive and delusional crusade to terrorize and destroy." If true, the case goes beyond a simple Tweet or personal opinion. The Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn universe was waiting to see what a jury would say about social media and defamation. Unfortunately, if the settlement is final, we now have to wait for the next big Twitter defamation case. It will not take long.
Connecticut Business Lawsuit Roundup
As a new addition in 2011, I am going to regularly feature new business lawsuits along with the usual trial and appellate decisions of interest in Connecticut. Here’s the first installment: Appellate Court: Cianci v. Original Werks, LLC Appellate Court finds that $150,000 mechanic’s lien was timely filed despite claim that it was made after statutory limit of 90 days from date "services" were performed. The decision includes a discussion of the legislative history of the mechanic’s lien statute and the definition of "services" under the statute. The court determined that services includes work done in or utilized in the building to be constructed, raised, removed, or reparied or the improvement of any lot or subdivision. In this case, the court construed the mechanic’s lien statute liberally and found that that contractor returning to the property at the request of the homeowner to investigate alleged deficiencies constituted lienable services. Walpole Woodworkers, Inc. v. Manning Appellate Court finds that homeowner who raised the Home Improvement Act’s technical requirements of start and finish date in bad faith. The Home Improvement Act in Connecticut requires registered contractors to include the following in written agreements: signatures of owner and contractor name and address of contractor cancellation rights start date and completion date Failure to include these requirements can result in technical defenses to enforcement of a home improvement contract. However, a homeowner cannot successfully raise these defenses in bad faith. In this case, the homeowner had no real dispute with the work but refused to pay. The Appellate Court upheld
Connecticut Bar Association Launches Blog
Rule of Law Blog: The Connecticut Bar Association has launched this new blog. The purpose of the blog is to "ensure a sustaining interest" in the discussion of "what our laws are doing right, what they are doing wrong, and how they can improve." Today, there is a post related to President Obama’s executive order related to reviewing the federal regulatory structure and its impact on business. There is a good comparison of positions from the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. I look foward to following the posts on this new blog. Congratulations to the CBA.
Will The “It Was Just A Tweet” Defense Work In The First Twitter Defamation Trial?
As mentioned before on this blog, Courtney Love was sued for defamation arising out of her notorious Twitter posts. As the case heads to trial on February 6th, she has taken down her Twitter page. Recall that Love was sued by fashion designer Dawn Simorangkir for a series of allegedly defamatory tweets. (She called her a drug-pushing prostitute for starters). THR, Esq Bloggers Matt Belloni and Eriq Gardner have a good summary of what’s expected at the upcoming trial. Simorangkir’s lawyer claims it is the first case of its kind, and he may be right. Legal observers are paying attention to whether the court or jury gives more leeway to someone posting on Twitter because tweets by their very nature are opinionated posts. According to legal blog watch, the case is also likely to feature another first, a social media expert. Jessie Stricchiola is the expert. Apparently, as a social media expert, she will testify as to the nature of Twitter posts, number of readers, and credibility. My own opinion is that there should not be any special consideration for commentary on Twitter. The posts or tweets should be judged under the same standard as any other potentially defamatory statement. Twitter is now part of the mainstream media. Take for example the recent Hayes trial in Connecticut. There were numerous reporters “live tweeting” from the courtroom. Most media personalities and journalists have twitter accounts where they regularly report and tweet facts. The reverse is also true. Journalists are now reading Twitter posts to get news stories. The statements at issue here appear to be defamatory (assuming she
Is It Fair to Claim That The Current US Supreme Court Is Pro-Business?
The New York Times this past Sunday had an article detailing how many times the Roberts court ruled in favor of business interests (61%). Debra Weiss of the ABA Journal writes about the article and some other findings noting that the Roberts court ruled in favor of the same side supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 13 out 16 cases last term. The Chamber’s interest is advocated by the National Chamber Litigation Center. The Times article also cited to a new study prepared for the Times by Northwestern University and the University of Chicago. The study allegedly supports a conclusion that the rate of success for business interests is increasing on the current Supreme Court. For a different view of things, read Ted Frank on the PointofLaw blog calling it a "myth" that Supreme Court is pro business. Chris Lehmann at The Awl has another take and provides a good history of some of Roberts’ own cases before the Supreme Court when he was in private practice. There are good points on both sides of the debate on this issue. Both sides have advocacy groups citing to data to support one view or another. I think it is too simplistic to call a court pro-business or anti-business. Although plenty of information is available to debate the issue, the cases before the Supreme Court are too varied in facts and law to draw a simple conclusion that a court is pro-business.
About CTBL
Connecticut Business Litigation is the most well-read litigation blog in the state of Connecticut. Founded by Attorney Kane Bennett in 2009, a pioneer in Attorney Marketing in the state of connecticut