The acceptance or rejection of testimony is a matter for the trial court. Starkel v. Edward Balf Co., 142 Conn. 336, 337, 114 A.2d 199; Quiet Automatic Burner Corporation v. Wetstone, 143 Conn. 276, 278, 121 A.2d 635; Practice Book 397; Maltbie, Conn. App. Proc. 158. Furthermore, the fact that a witness testifies as an expert does not compel the acceptance of his testimony as true. Taylor v. Corkey, 142 Conn. 150, 154, 111 A.2d 925; Clark v. Haggard, 141 Conn. 668, 674, 109 A.2d 358. The defendant's claim that the facts contained in six paragraphs of the finding were found without evidence is futile. These challenged facts are amply justified by the evidence.

We consider next the plaintiffs' averments that the court's conclusion that the defendant neither acted wilfully nor failed to take practicable precautions against the occurrence of the violations was illegally, illogically and unreasonably drawn. If the court's conclusion can be sustained, it disposes of this appeal. The plaintiffs, in connection with their claims, allege extensive error in the finding of facts and seek, in effect, to substitute their draft finding for the finding which was actually made. None of the corrections sought fall within the categories of permissible corrections set forth in Practice Book 397. They deal with the acceptance or rejection of testimony, which is a matter for the trial court. Chouinard v. Zoning Commission, 139 Conn. 728, 730, 97 A.2d 562; Quiet Automatic Burner Corporation v. Wetstone, 143 Conn. 276, 278, 121 A.2d 635; Maltbie, Conn. App. Proc., p. 124, 92. The inferences and conclusions drawn from the facts found are not illogical, unsound or violative of the plain rules of reason, and they must stand. Davis v. Margolis, 107 Conn. 417, 422, 140 A. 823; Farkas v. Halliwell, 136 Conn. 440, 444, 72 A.2d 648; Maltbie, Conn. App. Proc., p. 128. It is true that the administrator of the defendant had, under 2231c, the burden of proving the exemption of his decedent from the imposition of a liability for more than the actual amount of the overcharges.

Although use of tendered goods for a short time is not necessarily acceptance; see generally Latham & Associates, Inc. v. William Raveis Real Estate, Inc., 218 Conn. 297, 589 A.2d 337 (1991); see also Contoura Business Products, Inc. v. TLD, Inc., 1 Conn.App. 690, 691, 474 A.2d 1265 (1984); here, the totality of circumstances clearly evidences acceptance. See Quiet Automatic Burner Corp. v. Wetstone, 143 Conn. 276, 279, 121 A.2d 635 (1956) (buyer's conduct, after delivery of goods, in ordering carrier to deliver goods to third party was inconsistent with seller's ownership and justified finding of acceptance to buyer); Urbansky v. Kutinsky, 86 Conn. 22, 27, 84 A. 317 (1912). T. Keefe's failure to notify Metal Perreault that it was rejecting the goods, as well as its use of the goods was inconsistent with Metal Perreault's ownership, and is evidence of acceptance.

Other activities of which McCarthy complains, including the raking of leaves and the shoveling of snow, even if they occurred, do not appear to have exceeded de minimus consequences. See Quiet Automatic Burner Corp. v. Wetstone, 143 Conn. 276, 279, 121 A.2d 635 (1956). As noted, Otley admitted pounding down two survey markers and McCarthy incurred an $80.

Although use of tendered goods for a short time is not necessarily acceptance: Latham Associates, Inc. v. William Raveis Real Estate, Inc., 218 Conn. 297, 589 A.2d 337 (1991); Contoura Business Products, Inc. v. TLD, Inc., 1 Conn. App. 690, 691, 474 A.2d 1265 (1984); here, the totality of circumstances clearly evidences acceptance. See Quiet Automatic Burner Corp. v. Wetstone, 143 Conn. 276, 279, 121 A.2d 635 (1956) (buyer's conduct, after delivery of goods, in ordering carrier to deliver goods to third party was inconsistent with seller's ownership and justified finding of acceptance to buyer); Urbansky v. Kutinsky, 86 Conn. 22, 27, 84 A. 317 (1912). The defendant claims that the plaintiff revoked its acceptance by virtue of its intention to bring an action for damages. This contention is simply wrong.