Grenier v. Compratt Construction Co.
Connecticut Supreme Court
454 A.2d 1289 (983)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
The Greniers (plaintiffs) entered into an agreement with Compratt Construction Co. (Compratt) (defendant) whereby Compratt would pay the Greniers $25,500 for blasting work in the construction of roads. Payment was conditioned upon the Greniers obtaining a letter signed by the city engineer by a certain date, certifying that a certificate of occupancy could be obtained by Compratt in the subdivision where the roads were located. The contract also contained a liquidated damages clause if the Greniers did not perform on time. Although the Greniers completed their work on time, they were unable to obtain a letter from the city engineer because he did not ordinarily write such letters and refused to do so. A week and a half after the agreed upon completion date, the Greniers obtained a letter from the assistant city attorney authorizing the issuance of certificates of occupancy. The Greniers brought suit to obtain the $25,500 under the contract. Compratt counterclaimed seeking enforcement of the liquidated damages clause. The trial court ruled in favor of the Greniers for $23,000, which was the contract price minus damages for the letter from the assistant city attorney coming ten days late. Compratt appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Peters, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 791,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 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.