Fabrizio v. Fabrizio

4 Citing cases

  1. U.S. for Use of Endicott Ent. v. Star Brite

    848 F. Supp. 1161 (D. Del. 1994)   Cited 8 times

    B. Notice When a contract expressly states that a contractor or subcontractor give notice of its intention to stop work, the contractor or subcontractor must do so or it will be held in breach of contract. Fabrizio v. Fabrizio, 48 A.2d 375, 133 Conn. 108 (1946); Arthur L. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts § 692, at 269-271 (1960). Article 4.7.1 of the subcontract between Enco and Star Brite requires that before Enco stops work on the project it must wait seven days after a bill is due and then give an additional seven days written notice of its intention to stop work. (PX 1, Article 4.7.1.)

  2. Rowley v. Salladin

    139 Conn. 642 (Conn. 1953)   Cited 5 times
    In Rowley, the general contractor had abandoned the project without paying the subcontractor, who then filed a mechanic's lien.

    81 plus interest and rendered judgment of strict foreclosure. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff had no right to a mechanic's lien because Bishop had none. It is clear that Bishop had none. He had abandoned his contract, without fault on the part of the defendant, and the amount found necessary to complete it shows that he could not claim substantial performance. It follows that the plaintiff was entitled to no further payment; Fabrizio v. Fabrizio, 133 Conn. 108, 112, 48 A.2d 3715; and had no right to a mechanic's lien. Section 1273b of the 1951 Cumulative Supplement (formerly 7217 of the General Statutes) provides: "No mechanic's lien shall attach to any . . . building or its appurtenances or to the land on which the same may stand in favor of any subcontractor to a greater extent in the whole than the amount which the owner shall have agreed to pay to any person through whom such subcontractor shall claim. . . . Any such subcontractor shall be subrogated to the rights of the person through whom such subcontractor claims.

  3. M. Shapiro Son Construction Co. v. Battaglia

    83 A.2d 204 (Conn. 1951)   Cited 16 times

    The court read it to the jury and properly explained it. The decisive question was whether the defendants had abandoned, and consequently breached, the contract. This was a question of fact. Chinigo v. Ehrenberg, 112 Conn. 381, 384, 152 A. 305; M. J. Daly Sons, Inc. v. New Haven Hotel Co., 91 Conn. 280, 290, 99 A. 853; Winter Garden Citrus Growers Assn. v. Willits, 113 Fla. 131, 135, 151 So. 509; see Fabrizio v. Fabrizio, 133 Conn. 108, 111, 48 A.2d 375. The actions constituting an abandonment must be absolute and unequivocal. Nothe v. Nomer, 54 Conn. 326, 328, 8 A. 134; Wonalancet Co. v. Banfield, 116 Conn. 582, 586, 165 A. 785. The charge given clearly left the answers to these questions to the jury.

  4. Ingrassia Const. v. Great American

    345 N.J. Super. 130 (App. Div. 2001)   Cited 8 times

    Nevertheless, the parties remain free to determine by their contract that the architect's decision will be final and binding, see, e.g., Lane v. Geiger-Bergen Assocs., 608 F.2d 1148, 1151 (8th Cir. 1979), and that is, as well, its consequence if arbitration is contractually provided for but not demanded. See, e.g.,Fabrizio v. Fabrizio, 48 A.2d 375, 376 (Conn. 1946). As we have pointed out here, the "subject to arbitration" language of section 4.4.4 of AIA Document A201 had been deleted by the parties' agreement, thus rendering the architect's decision final and binding.