Pinnacle Tech. v. Adv. Comp. Leas. S., No. Cv94 0141803 S (Sep. 25, 1995)

Connecticut Superior Court

Pinnacle Tech. v. Adv. Comp. Leas. S., No. Cv94 0141803 S (Sep. 25, 1995)

1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 10065

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedSeptember 25, 1995

DocketNo. CV94 0141803 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 10065 (Pinnacle Tech. v. Adv. Comp. Leas. S., No. Cv94 0141803 S (Sep. 25, 1995)) 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

Pinnacle Tech. v. Adv. Comp. Leas. S., No. Cv94 0141803 S (Sep. 25, 1995), 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 10065 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION TO STRIKE #106) CT Page 10066 The defendant's motion to strike count four of the plaintiff's revised complaint is denied. In court four, the plaintiff incorporates the allegations of count one and two, alleging breach of contract and fraud, and further alleges that the defendant: used the breach of contract "in a coercive manner, as leverage in a distinct and separate dispute which has arisen between the parties;" refused to deal in good faith; that the defendant's conduct has been "unfair, deceptive, oppressive, willful and/or immoral;" and the defendant's acts have caused the plaintiff to be "severely damaged." These allegations, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, sufficiently allege a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. See generally NorwichSavings Society v. Caldrello, 38 Conn. App. 859, 865-66, ___ A.2d ___ (1985).

D'ANDREA, J.

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION TO STRIKE #106) CT Page 10066 The defendant's motion to strike count four of the plaintiff's revised complaint is denied. In court four, the plaintiff incorporates the allegations of count one and two, alleging breach of contract and fraud, and further alleges that the defendant: used the breach of contract "in a coercive manner, as leverage in a distinct and separate dispute which has arisen between the parties;" refused to deal in good faith; that the defendant's conduct has been "unfair, deceptive, oppressive, willful and/or immoral;" and the defendant's acts have caused the plaintiff to be "severely damaged." These allegations, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, sufficiently allege a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. See generally NorwichSavings Society v. Caldrello, 38 Conn. App. 859, 865-66, ___ A.2d ___ (1985).

D'ANDREA, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 10065, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pinnacle-tech-v-adv-comp-leas-s-no-cv94-0141803-s-sep-25-1995-connsuperct-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack