From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fiorilla v. Moore

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Apr 22, 1964
200 A.2d 488 (Conn. 1964)

Summary

In Fiorilla, our Supreme Court only upheld a trial court's determination that an unpaid check did not constitute "payment" of liquidated damages under the terms of the contract at issue.

Summary of this case from Chandlery at Essex v. Schonberger

Opinion

Argued April 7, 1964

Decided April 22, 1964

Action to recover damages for breach of a contract to buy real estate, brought to the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County where the defendant filed a counterclaim and the issues were tried to the court, Johnson, J.; judgment for the defendant on the complaint and for the plaintiff on the counterclaim and appeal by the plaintiff. No error.

Robert B. Devine, for the appellant (plaintiff).

David Albert, for the appellee (defendant).


The plaintiff, as vendor, and the defendant, as vendee, entered into a contract for the sale and purchase of certain premises. The defendant ordered payment stopped on a check given the plaintiff by the defendant. The check had been given to cover the second of the payments called for under the contract. Presentment of the check for payment had been withheld by agreement of the parties to permit the defendant to deposit sufficient funds to cover it. The contract contained a clause which provided that, if the defendant failed to make the payments required by the contract, he would forfeit all claim to the premises and forfeit as liquidated damages all sums paid under the contract. Under this liquidated damages provision of the contract, the plaintiff brought this suit, alleging nonpayment of the check. The court found that the unpaid check did not constitute "payment", or a sum "paid", within the terms of the contract. It therefore concluded that recovery of the amount of the check could not be had under the liquidated damages clause. See Tuckel v. Jurovaty, 141 Conn. 649, 651, 109 A.2d 262. From a judgment for the defendant the plaintiff has appealed.

In his brief the plaintiff does not specifically dispute the conclusion of the court that he could not recover the amount of the check under the liquidated damages clause of the contract. He does claim, however, that he, as payee of the check, is entitled to collect it since it remains wholly unpaid. That cause of action was not embraced within the scope of the allegations of the complaint, and recovery thereon would not be permissible. United Construction Corporation v. Beacon Construction Co., 147 Conn. 492, 496, 162 A.2d 707; Buol Machine Co. v. Buckens, 146 Conn. 639, 642, 153 A.2d 826; Berman v. Kling, 81 Conn. 403, 405, 71 A. 507; see 11 Am.Jur.2d, Bills and Notes, § 590, p. 661, § 591; 12 Am.Jur.2d, Bills and Notes, §§ 1024, 1026, p. 44.


Summaries of

Fiorilla v. Moore

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Apr 22, 1964
200 A.2d 488 (Conn. 1964)

In Fiorilla, our Supreme Court only upheld a trial court's determination that an unpaid check did not constitute "payment" of liquidated damages under the terms of the contract at issue.

Summary of this case from Chandlery at Essex v. Schonberger
Case details for

Fiorilla v. Moore

Case Details

Full title:JAMES FIORILLA v. LAURENCE T. MOORE

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut

Date published: Apr 22, 1964

Citations

200 A.2d 488 (Conn. 1964)
200 A.2d 488

Citing Cases

Zimedil Realty, LLC v. Galarneau

3. Although paragraph 12 contains a liquidated provision as to default by the buyers requiring liquidated…

Chandlery at Essex v. Schonberger

The defendants also argue that they are entitled to summary judgment because Connecticut law precludes…