Legal Opinion
Bradford Novelty Co. v. Technomatic, Inc.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided March 1, 1955PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
The plaintiff brought this action to recover the sum of $2100, paid pursuant to a contract to construct a machine. It alleged that the defendant had failed to perform the contract within the time agreed. The defendant denied any breach of the contract and by counterclaim sought damages for the refusal of the plaintiff to accept the machine and pay the balance of the purchase price. The trial court rendered judgment for the defendant on the complaint and the counterclaim, and the plaintiff has appealed.
The finding of facts, which is not subject to cor rection, may be summarized as follows: The…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Allen v. JarvisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1849
- Belisle v. Berkshire Ice Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1923
- Grippo v. DavisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1918
- Janulewycz v. QuaglianoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1914
- O'Loughlin v. PoliSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1909
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Multiplastics, Inc. v. Arch Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1974
- Van Dyck Printing Co. v. DinicolaConnecticut Superior Court · 1993
- S.H.V.C., Inc. v. RoyConnecticut Superior Court · 1981
- R. A. Weaver & Associates, Inc. v. Haas & Haynie Corp.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1980
- R. A. Weaver and Associates, Inc. v. Haas and Haynie Corporation and Blake Construction Company, Inc., R. A. Weaver and Associates, Inc. v. Haas and Haynie Corporation and Blake Construction Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1980
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.