This must be done by clear and convincing evidence. Bruneau v. W. W. Transportation Co., 138 Conn. 179, 182 [ 82 A.2d 923] (1951)." Hrostek v. Massey, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield, Docket No. CV 03 0407894 (May 25, 2007, Radcliffe, J.).
By asserting that they did not breach the peace in repossessing the Honda, Wayside appears to be arguing that their conduct was authorized, and thus plaintiff cannot satisfy the third element. Cf. Bruneau v. W. & W. Transp., 138 Conn. 179, 82 A.2d 923, 924 (1951) (finding that plaintiff failed to prove conversion where plaintiff's truck was lawfully repossessed). As the question of whether Wayside breached the peace in repossessing the Honda, and thus carried out an unlawful repossession, is a disputed question of material fact to be decided by the jury, the court denies Wayside's motion for summary judgment on this claim.
The essence of the wrong is that the property rights of the plaintiff have been dealt with in a manner adverse to him, inconsistent with his right of dominion and to his harm. Pollock's Law of Torts, p. 290.' Gilbert v. Walker, 64 Conn. 390, 394, 30 A. 132; Bruneau v. W. W. Transportation Co., 138 Conn. 179, 182, 82 A.2d 923. [1951]." VanDerlip v. VanDerlip, 149 Conn. 285, 288-89, 179 A.2d 619 (1962).
" This court has most recently formulated the proper standard as "clear and satisfactory evidence." Miller v. Appleby, 183 Conn. 51, 55, 438 A.2d 811 (1981); see Bruneau v. W. W. Transportation Co., 138 Conn. 179, 182, 82 A.2d 923 (1951); Hathaway v. Bornmann, 137 Conn. 322, 325, 77 A.2d 91 (1950). A second line of cases prefers the language of the trial court, "clear, precise and unequivocal evidence.
Fraud is not to be presumed but must be proven by clear and satisfactory evidence. See Bruneau v. W. W. Transportation Co., 138 Conn. 179, 182, 82 A.2d 923 (1951); Kulukundis v. Dean Stores Holding Co., 132 Conn. 685, 689, 47 A.2d 183 (1946); Burley v. Davis, 132 Conn. 631, 634, 46 A.2d 417 (1946); Basak v. Damutz, 105 Conn. 378, 382, 135 A. 453 (1926). "Fraud and misrepresentation cannot be easily defined because they can be accomplished in so many different ways. They present, however, issues of fact."
Pollock's Law of Torts, p. 290." Gilbert v. Walker, 64 Conn. 390, 394, 30 A. 132; Bruneau v. W. W. Transportation Co., 138 Conn. 179, 182, 82 A.2d 923. The plaintiff, as executor, or, for that matter, even as a residuary legatee, had no rights of dominion or possession in the partnership assets, as such, nor any rights of ownership.
' This court has most recently formulated the proper standard as `clear and satisfactory evidence.' Miller v. Appleby, 183 Conn. 51, 55, 438 A.2d 811 (1981); see Bruneau v. W. W. Transportation Co., 138 Conn. 179, 182, 82 A.2d 923 (1951); Hathaway v. Bornmann, 137 Conn. 322, 325, 77 A.2d 91 (1950). A second line of cases prefers the language of the trial court, `clear, precise and unequivocal evidence.
In order to establish conversion, the complaint must allege an unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over the personal property of another to the detriment of the owner. VanDerlip v. VanDerlip, 149 Conn. 285, 288-89, 179 A.2d 619 (1962); Bruneau v. W. W. Transportation Co., 138 Conn. 179, 182, 82 A.2d 923 (1951); Gilbert v. Walker, 64 Conn. 390, 394-95, 30 A. 132 (1894). The exercise of ownership over the property may take a number of forms, and may occur even when the original possession was not wrongful. Bruneau v. W. W. Transportation Co., supra, 182-83; Coleman v. Francis, 102 Conn. 612, 615, 129 A. 718 (1925).
In order to prevail in a claim of fraudulent or intentional misrepresentation, a plaintiff must establish fraud by clear and convincing evidence. See Bruneau v. W& W Transportation Co., 138 Conn. 179, 182, 82 A.2d 923 (1951). The plaintiff asserts in its posttrial brief that " when [the defendant] entered into the three invoices with [the plaintiff], it had no intention of paying those invoices at the agreed upon price."
This must be done by clear and convincing evidence. Bruneau v. W W Transportation Co., 138 Conn. 179, 182 (1951). Clear and convincing evidence is enough evidence to establish a very high probability that the facts asserted are true. Cadle Co. v. D'Addario, 268 Conn. 441, 445 (2004).