Vachon v. Tomascak
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1DissentCotter, J.
The plaintiff alleged, the defendants admitted, and the trial court found that the transaction of December 15-16 was an extension, for consideration, of the original agreement entered into on November 3. Therefore the plaintiff’s basic cause of action must rest on the original agreement, as extended.
The word “extension,” as expressed in the instrument, has a clear and definite meaning which is capable of a precise and sensible application. Trumbull Electric Mfg. Co. v. John Cooke Co., 130 Conn. 12, 16, 31 A.2d 393. We are bound to regard the intent which the parties expressed in the language…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Connecticut Union of Telephone Workers, Inc. v. Southern New England Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1961
- Beach v. BeachSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1954
- Frost v. PlumbSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1873
- Trumbull Electric Manufacturing Co. v. John Cooke Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1943
- Dorne v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1953
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.