Tarala Electric Co. v. Bechard, No. Cv90 0110951 S (Jul. 2, 1992)

Connecticut Superior Court

Tarala Electric Co. v. Bechard, No. Cv90 0110951 S (Jul. 2, 1992)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6344

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJuly 2, 1992

DocketNo. CV90 0110951 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6344 (Tarala Electric Co. v. Bechard, No. Cv90 0110951 S (Jul. 2, 1992)) 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

Tarala Electric Co. v. Bechard, No. Cv90 0110951 S (Jul. 2, 1992), 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6344 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The plaintiff objects to the Fact Finder's report on the ground that the Fact Finder improperly found that the defendant Richard Bechard was not acting in an individual capacity when he requested that the plaintiff perform the work in question, P. B. 546H. He criticizes this finding because it, in effect, shifts to the defendant the burden of proving that Bechard was not acting for the corporation.

It is the duty of the trial court in reviewing the report of the Fact Finder to determine whether the evidence supports the findings, Shaw v. Socci, 24 Conn. App. 223. An examination of the evidence in this case reveals that in response to successive invoices which it received from the plaintiff, the defendant Falcon Productions, Inc., wrote and delivered to the plaintiff five separate checks which the defendant negotiated. Each check was signed by the defendant Bechard. Having accepted these checks the plaintiff cannot now be heard to state that he did not know that Bechard was a corporate officer. The identity of the plaintiff was disclosed when the corporation issued its first check at the beginning of the relationship. This is when it should have become apparent that Bechard was acting in a representative capacity for the corporation, New England Whalers Hockey Club v. Nair, 1 Conn. App. 680, 683.

There is nothing in the Fact Finder's report that indicates that he imposed any burden of proof on the plaintiff with respect to this issue. The five checks in question were introduced in evidence by the defendant and not the plaintiff in proof of the defendant's First Special Defense.

The Objection to the report of the Fact Finder is overruled, the report is accepted and judgment may enter in accordance with the report.

MOTTOLESE, J. CT Page 6345

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 The plaintiff objects to the Fact Finder's report on the ground that the Fact Finder improperly found that the defendant Richard Bechard was not acting in an individual capacity when he requested that the plaintiff perform the work in question, P. B. 546H. He criticizes this finding because it, in effect, shifts to the defendant the burden of proving that Bechard was not acting for the corporation.

It is the duty of the trial court in reviewing the report of the Fact Finder to determine whether the evidence supports the findings, Shaw v. Socci, 24 Conn. App. 223. An examination of the evidence in this case reveals that in response to successive invoices which it received from the plaintiff, the defendant Falcon Productions, Inc., wrote and delivered to the plaintiff five separate checks which the defendant negotiated. Each check was signed by the defendant Bechard. Having accepted these checks the plaintiff cannot now be heard to state that he did not know that Bechard was a corporate officer. The identity of the plaintiff was disclosed when the corporation issued its first check at the beginning of the relationship. This is when it should have become apparent that Bechard was acting in a representative capacity for the corporation, New England Whalers Hockey Club v. Nair, 1 Conn. App. 680, 683.

There is nothing in the Fact Finder's report that indicates that he imposed any burden of proof on the plaintiff with respect to this issue. The five checks in question were introduced in evidence by the defendant and not the plaintiff in proof of the defendant's First Special Defense.

The Objection to the report of the Fact Finder is overruled, the report is accepted and judgment may enter in accordance with the report.

MOTTOLESE, J. CT Page 6345

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tarala-electric-co-v-bechard-no-cv90-0110951-s-jul-2-1992-connsuperct-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack