Biller v. Reilly, No. Cv93 30 10 30 S (Sep. 6, 1996)

Connecticut Superior Court

Biller v. Reilly, No. Cv93 30 10 30 S (Sep. 6, 1996)

1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5496-GGG

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedSeptember 6, 1996

DocketNo. CV93 30 10 30 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5496-GGG (Biller v. Reilly, No. Cv93 30 10 30 S (Sep. 6, 1996)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Biller v. Reilly, No. Cv93 30 10 30 S (Sep. 6, 1996), 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5496-GGG (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT #125 The motion for summary judgment is denied.

The defendant abandoned his claim that the alleged contract violated Rule 1.5(c).

The defendant's claim that the alleged contract violates C.G.S. § 52-251c is unpersuasive. That statute was not passed until after the formation of the alleged contract.

The defendant's claim that the alleged contract fails for lack of consideration is also unpersuasive. Whether a contractual commitment has been undertaken is ultimately a question of the intention of the parties. Intention is an inference of fact, and the conclusion is not reviewable unless it was one that the trier could not reasonably make. Hydro-Hercules Corporation v. GaryExcavating, Inc., 166 Conn. 647, 653, 353 A.2d 714 (1974). The court finds there to be a genuine issue of material fact concerning the claim of lack of consideration. CT Page 5496-HHH

LAWRENCE L. HAUSER, JUDGE

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

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT #125 The motion for summary judgment is denied.

The defendant abandoned his claim that the alleged contract violated Rule 1.5(c).

The defendant's claim that the alleged contract violates C.G.S. § 52-251c is unpersuasive. That statute was not passed until after the formation of the alleged contract.

The defendant's claim that the alleged contract fails for lack of consideration is also unpersuasive. Whether a contractual commitment has been undertaken is ultimately a question of the intention of the parties. Intention is an inference of fact, and the conclusion is not reviewable unless it was one that the trier could not reasonably make. Hydro-Hercules Corporation v. GaryExcavating, Inc., 166 Conn. 647, 653, 353 A.2d 714 (1974). The court finds there to be a genuine issue of material fact concerning the claim of lack of consideration. CT Page 5496-HHH

LAWRENCE L. HAUSER, JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5496-GGG, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/biller-v-reilly-no-cv93-30-10-30-s-sep-6-1996-connsuperct-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack