R. N. Loope, Aia, Inc. v. Epstein, No. Cv89 02 88 06s (Dec. 18, 1990)

Connecticut Superior Court

R. N. Loope, Aia, Inc. v. Epstein, No. Cv89 02 88 06s (Dec. 18, 1990)

1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 4931

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedDecember 18, 1990

DocketNo. CV89 02 88 06S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 4931 (R. N. Loope, Aia, Inc. v. Epstein, No. Cv89 02 88 06s (Dec. 18, 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

R. N. Loope, Aia, Inc. v. Epstein, No. Cv89 02 88 06s (Dec. 18, 1990), 1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 4931 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION This is an action to recover architectural and development services, which the plaintiff claimed were performed for and at the direction of the named defendant. The complaint alleges that the services were performed between October 12, 1987 and November 26, 1987, but evidence at the trial showed that they were performed between November 1987 and January 1988.

The plaintiff was originally contacted by Charles Lehn and performed services for him between May and August 1987. Lehn was represented by the defendant, an attorney with Cohen and Wolf, a law firm. The architectural services were rendered to Lehn even though the defendant, as Lehn's attorney, had telephone conversations and meetings with the plaintiff in the course of representing the client. The plaintiff was unsuccessful in obtaining payment from Lehn, and now claims that the defendant is responsible for the architectural fees in the amount of $3,072.98. The defendant had no contractual relationship with the plaintiff for services to be rendered to him individually, and never promised to pay the plaintiff for the architectural work performed for Lehn. Where an agent makes a contract only on behalf of a competent disclosed principal whom he has the power to bind, he does not thereby become liable for nonperformance of the contract. Robert T. Reynolds Associates, Inc. v. Asbeck, 23 Conn. App. 247, 253; Behlman v. Universal Travel Agency, Inc., 4 Conn. App. 688, 690; 2 Restatement (2nd), Agency, section 328. The plaintiff has not proven its claim by a fair preponderance of the evidence.

Judgment may enter for the defendant.

ROBERT A. FULLER, 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 This is an action to recover architectural and development services, which the plaintiff claimed were performed for and at the direction of the named defendant. The complaint alleges that the services were performed between October 12, 1987 and November 26, 1987, but evidence at the trial showed that they were performed between November 1987 and January 1988.

The plaintiff was originally contacted by Charles Lehn and performed services for him between May and August 1987. Lehn was represented by the defendant, an attorney with Cohen and Wolf, a law firm. The architectural services were rendered to Lehn even though the defendant, as Lehn's attorney, had telephone conversations and meetings with the plaintiff in the course of representing the client. The plaintiff was unsuccessful in obtaining payment from Lehn, and now claims that the defendant is responsible for the architectural fees in the amount of $3,072.98. The defendant had no contractual relationship with the plaintiff for services to be rendered to him individually, and never promised to pay the plaintiff for the architectural work performed for Lehn. Where an agent makes a contract only on behalf of a competent disclosed principal whom he has the power to bind, he does not thereby become liable for nonperformance of the contract. Robert T. Reynolds Associates, Inc. v. Asbeck, 23 Conn. App. 247, 253; Behlman v. Universal Travel Agency, Inc., 4 Conn. App. 688, 690; 2 Restatement (2nd), Agency, section 328. The plaintiff has not proven its claim by a fair preponderance of the evidence.

Judgment may enter for the defendant.

ROBERT A. FULLER, JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 4931, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/r-n-loope-aia-inc-v-epstein-no-cv89-02-88-06s-dec-18-1990-connsuperct-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack