Beucler v. Lloyd

870 A.2d 468, 273 Conn. 475, 2005 Conn. LEXIS 139
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedApril 26, 2005
DocketSC 17260
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 870 A.2d 468 (Beucler v. Lloyd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Beucler v. Lloyd, 870 A.2d 468, 273 Conn. 475, 2005 Conn. LEXIS 139 (Colo. 2005).

Opinion

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendants, Michael J. Lloyd and James Lloyd, doing business as J.M. Company, appeal, following our grant of certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court reversing the judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiffs, Robert Beucler and Lori Beucler. See Beucler v. Lloyd, 83 Conn. App. 731, 733, 851 A.2d 358 (2004). The Appellate Court concluded that the written notice provision of the construction contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants modified the warranties created by General Statutes §§ 47-1171 and [477]*47747-1182 and, therefore, was inoperative. Beucler v. Lloyd, supra, 739. Accordingly, the defendants were not entitled to raise the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the notice provision as a special defense to the plaintiffs’ action alleging, inter alia, breach of contract and breach of the express and implied new home warranties created by §§ 47-117 and 47-118. We granted the defendants’ petition for certification to appeal limited to the following issue: “Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the notice requirement in the parties’ con[478]*478straction contract did not comport with the plaintiffs’ warranty rights under the New Home Warranties Act, General Statutes § 47-116 et seq.?” Beucler v. Lloyd, 271 Conn. 913, 913-14, 859 A.2d 567 (2004).

After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.

The appeal is dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Silver Hill Hospital, Inc. v. Kessler
200 Conn. App. 742 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2020)
Stamford Hospital v. Schwartz
209 A.3d 1243 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2019)
Winthrop House Ass'n v. Brookside Elm Ltd. Partners
451 F. Supp. 2d 336 (D. Connecticut, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
870 A.2d 468, 273 Conn. 475, 2005 Conn. LEXIS 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beucler-v-lloyd-conn-2005.