Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act Archives - Attorney Scott S. Orenstein

Most Construction Disputes Do Not Involve Unfair Trade Practices

Generally speaking, the legal profession is not currently held in high esteem. In my opinion, there are a couple of reasons for this situation. First, I believe that the general public does not fully understand the adversarial process used in our legal system or the reasons why lawyers are allowed to “argue in the alternative,” which, in normal parlance, would negatively be referred to as talking out of both sides of your mouth. Second, the negative public opinion is (unfortunately) deserved by virtue of how some attorneys approach their cases.

Attorneys that draft complaints that go beyond any reasonable interpretation of the facts hurt themselves and the legal profession as a whole. I once received a complaint that was far beyond the pale because, in a case where a subcontractor asserted a claim for nonpayment, the attorney not only alleged breach of contract, but also asserted a human rights violation against my client because the subcontractor was a Minority Business Enterprise (“MBE”) and my client was allegedly a racist. Of course, my African American client and I had a good laugh when I called to let her know that she was being accused of being a racist. (Practice tip to new attorneys: If you are going to make a claim based upon race,

There’s a New Proposed Law Regarding Emergency Services That Everyone Should Support

Parties are free to enter into contracts with any terms and conditions to which they both agree — but that right is not absolute. Certain contract terms are void by statute or case law based upon public policy considerations. For example, in Connecticut, the General Statutes do not allow contractors to prospectively waive their mechanic’s lien rights and the General Statutes do not allow contracting parties to have another state’s laws govern a dispute arising out of a construction project within Connecticut. However, the most onerous example of a statute that potentially voids an otherwise enforceable contract is the Home Improvement Act.

As previously discussed here, the Home Improvement Act can lead to unfair results. As upheld by the Connecticut Supreme Court, any contract that does not contain certain elements required by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-429 is unenforceable and the contractor that enters into such an agreement with an owner may also be held liable for a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Under the terms of the Home Improvement Act, a contract that does not include notice of cancellation rights violates the statute. Thus, the owner of any home improvement project must be allowed three business days to cancel a home improvement contract after it is executed.

Scott Orenstein
02.21.2017
Connecticut Construction Law, Construction Attorney, Construction Law, Contract Law, Home Improvement Act
0 Comment

An Owner’s Refusal to Issue Payment Might Amount to a Violation of the Unfair Trade Practices Act — But That’s Not Usually the Case

Litigation arising out of construction contract disputes obviously will include claims for breach of contract, but also tend to include claims that are based upon alleged violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA). Because there must be a good faith basis for any alleged claim, a set of facts should exist that reasonably supports any such allegations. However, given the requirements of a CUTPA claim and the frequency with such claims are alleged, a cynical person might suspect that CUTPA claims are often asserted merely as a way to circumvent the “American Rule,” which requires each party to be responsible for its own attorneys’ fees and costs.

The cost of litigation can make pursuing certain claims cost prohibitive. However, a plaintiff that prevails in a CUTPA claim may be awarded punitive damages and/or its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g. In addition, the mere threat of this additional liability may intimidate an opposing party into entering a settlement that it would not otherwise consider. Thus, alleging a violation of CUTPA may give a plaintiff a strategic advantage in litigation but such a claim is not likely to succeed in most situations.

Scott Orenstein
08.22.2016
Connecticut Construction Law, Construction Law
0 Comment

Categories

Recent Posts