Legal Opinion · Dissent

Arruda Realty, Inc. v. Doyon

Connecticut Superior Court

Decided September 8, 1978No. FILE NO. 645Published

1DissentParskey, J.

I cannot agree that the contract in this case does not comply with the provisions of General Statutes § 20-325a (b) (2). The majority opinion finds that the contract does not contain the defendant’s address. I disagree. The agreement is for the sale of 20 Longview Drive, Windsor, Connecticut. An “address” is defined as “the designation of a place . . . where a person or organization may be found or communicated with... a part of such a designation (a street address).” Webster, Third New International Dictionary. Under this definition it could hardly be disputed that 20 Longview Drive is an…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Panaroni v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1969
  2. Fisher, Brown & Co. v. FieldingSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1895
  3. Hatheway v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1907
  4. Nichols v. LewisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1842
  5. Jarvis v. CunliffeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1953

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API