Legal Opinion
Barrett Builders v. Miller
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided June 12, 1990No. 13816PublishedCited by 99 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPeters, C. J.
The sole issue in this appeal is whether a contractor who has failed to comply with the requirements of the Home Improvement Act; General Statutes § 20-418 et seq.; can nonetheless recover in quasi contract by demonstrating unjust enrichment1 on the part of the homeowner for whom the contractor has performed work. The plaintiff, Barrett Builders, brought an action in three counts against the defendant, Rhoda Miller, alleging its right to recover for the value of goods and services represented by home improvements at the defendant’s home. The plaintiff has not pressed the first and third…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Heslin v. Connecticut Law Clinic of Trantolo & TrantoloSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Mahoney v. LensinkSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- Rhodes v. City of HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
- Burns v. KoellmerConnecticut Appellate Court · 1987
- Caulkins v. PetrilloSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by99 opinions
- Liljedahl Bros. v. GrigsbySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- Habetz v. CondonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Wadia Enterprises, Inc. v. HirschfeldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Gagne v. VaccaroSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
- A. Secondino & Son, Inc. v. LoRiccoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
94 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.