Calhoun v. Wheel Ring, Inc., No. Cv 89 26 35 84 (Jul. 9, 1990)

Connecticut Superior Court

Calhoun v. Wheel Ring, Inc., No. Cv 89 26 35 84 (Jul. 9, 1990)

1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 493

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJuly 9, 1990

DocketNo. CV 89 26 35 84

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 493 (Calhoun v. Wheel Ring, Inc., No. Cv 89 26 35 84 (Jul. 9, 1990)) 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

Calhoun v. Wheel Ring, Inc., No. Cv 89 26 35 84 (Jul. 9, 1990), 1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 493 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION TO STRIKE The Motion to Strike is granted as to the second count. In the absence of an allegation that the defendants' promise to convey stock was made with an intent not to perform, the defendants' statement is not actionable as a misrepresentation. Barlow Brothers Co. v. Gager, 113 Conn. 429, 445 (1931); Sallies v. Johnson, 85 Conn. 77, 80-81 (1911). "An allegation of a present intention to deceive is an essential allegation in an action of deceit based upon an unfulfilled promise to do a future act." Id. at 81.

The Motion to Strike is granted as to the third count. The plaintiff has failed to allege that the statements regarding the stock offer were made with an intent to deceive. Furthermore, he has failed to allege that the statement that stock certificates were being prepared was a false statement, that the statement was known to the defendants to be false and that the plaintiff relied upon the statement.

As to the fourth count, the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a claim for tortious interference with contract CT Page 494 rights. Robert S. Weiss Associates, Inc. v. Wiederlight,208 Conn. 525, 535-36 (1988).

Whether the plaintiff can prove the allegations is not to be decided on the present motion. Defendant Summers claims that his conduct was privileged because he is employed by the defendant company. See Kecko Piping Co. v. Monroe,172 Conn. 197, 202, (1977). This issue should not be decided on a motion to strike.

THIM, 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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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 TO STRIKE The Motion to Strike is granted as to the second count. In the absence of an allegation that the defendants' promise to convey stock was made with an intent not to perform, the defendants' statement is not actionable as a misrepresentation. Barlow Brothers Co. v. Gager, 113 Conn. 429, 445 (1931); Sallies v. Johnson, 85 Conn. 77, 80-81 (1911). "An allegation of a present intention to deceive is an essential allegation in an action of deceit based upon an unfulfilled promise to do a future act." Id. at 81.

The Motion to Strike is granted as to the third count. The plaintiff has failed to allege that the statements regarding the stock offer were made with an intent to deceive. Furthermore, he has failed to allege that the statement that stock certificates were being prepared was a false statement, that the statement was known to the defendants to be false and that the plaintiff relied upon the statement.

As to the fourth count, the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a claim for tortious interference with contract CT Page 494 rights. Robert S. Weiss Associates, Inc. v. Wiederlight,208 Conn. 525, 535-36 (1988).

Whether the plaintiff can prove the allegations is not to be decided on the present motion. Defendant Summers claims that his conduct was privileged because he is employed by the defendant company. See Kecko Piping Co. v. Monroe,172 Conn. 197, 202, (1977). This issue should not be decided on a motion to strike.

THIM, JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calhoun-v-wheel-ring-inc-no-cv-89-26-35-84-jul-9-1990-connsuperct-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack