Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

C.R. Klewin, Inc. v. Flagship Properties, Inc.

Supreme Court of Connecticut
600 A.2d 772 (1991)


Facts

C.R. Klewin, Inc. (Klewin) (plaintiff) entered into an oral agreement with Flagship Properties, Inc. (Flagship) (defendant) to act as construction manager for Flagship’s housing construction project at the University of Connecticut. At a meeting between Klewin and Flagship representatives, Klewin agreed to be paid a percentage fee for construction management services, and the meeting concluded with the statement, “We’ve got a deal.” After completing the first stage of the work, for which the parties had a separate written agreement, Flagship replaced Klewin as construction manager with another firm. Klewin sued Flagship for, inter alia, breach of contract. Flagship moved for summary judgment claiming that the oral agreement was unenforceable because it fell within the Statute of Frauds, and therefore must be in writing to be enforceable. Flagship argued the agreement fell within the Statute because it could not be performed within one year due to the size of the project and because the parties anticipated the project to be completed within 3-10 years. The trial court granted summary judgment and Klewin appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified two questions to the Supreme Court of Connecticut regarding application of the state’s statute of frauds.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Peters, C.J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 174,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.