Legal Opinion
Stabenau v. Cairelli
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided August 14, 1990No. 8363PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSpallone, J.
The defendants appeal from the judgment of the trial court ordering them to return the plaintiffs’ deposit advanced toward the purchase of the defendants’ house. The defendants claim that the trial court improperly refused to enforce the liquidated damages clause in the contract of sale and improperly applied the doctrine of unjust enrichment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts are undisputed. By a written contract, the plaintiffs agreed to purchase the defendants’ house for $96,000.1 The contract provided for a $6000 deposit that, in the event of a breach by the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Pandolphe's Auto Parts, Inc. v. Town of ManchesterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. MurphySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
- Vines v. Orchard Hills, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Cookson v. CooksonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
- Norwalk Door Closer Co. v. Eagle Lock & Screw Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1966
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Hartford Whalers Hockey Club v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
- Polverari v. PeattConnecticut Appellate Court · 1992
- McNeil v. RiccioConnecticut Appellate Court · 1997
- Ayotte Bros. Construction Co. v. FinneyConnecticut Appellate Court · 1996
- Shiang-Yueng Feng v. Dart Hill Realty, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1992
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.