Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** PAUL J. GEARY v. WENTWORTH LABORATORIES, INC., ET AL. (AC 20170)
Lavery, C. J., and Foti and O'Connell, Js. Submitted on briefs September 15--officially released November 7, 2000 Counsel

William M. Laviano filed a brief for the appellant (plaintiff). Bernard E. Jacques, Dana R. Petaway and Sara N. Robinson filed a brief for the appellees (defendants).
Opinion

LAVERY, C. J. The plaintiff, Paul J. Geary, appeals from the trial court's judgment rendered in favor of the defendants, Wentworth Laboratories, Inc. (Wentworth), and John Brown, following a jury trial on the plaintiff's amended complaint alleging wrongful termination, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, tortious interference with contract and breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly failed to instruct the jury on (1) the apparent or actual authority of the vice president and general manager to bind Went-

worth to an oral contract and (2) partial performance as it relates to contract formation. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court. The following facts are undisputed. The plaintiff began his employment with Wentworth in October, 1988. In November, 1991, he was offered a higher position with another company. When the plaintiff submitted his resignation to accept the new job, the vice president and general manager of Wentworth at the time, Clive Beddoe-Stevens, met with the plaintiff and persuaded him to stay on at Wentworth by offering him a raise, which he was in fact given. The plaintiff alleged at trial, however, that Beddoe-Stevens also expressly promised to appoint the plaintiff to head the new division that would be created by the separation of the company into two business units. When the separation of divisions finally occurred in February, 1994, Wentworth failed to appoint the plaintiff to the position. The plaintiff complained that the failure to appoint him to the position was a breach of the agreement he had made with Wentworth's vice president. Subsequently, the plaintiff resigned, claiming that he was constructively discharged as a result of the allegedly retaliatory acts Wentworth took after he protested the breach. This action followed. Our standard of review concerning preserved claims of improper jury instruction is well settled. See State v. Belanger, 55 Conn. App. 2, 6

Download Geary v. Wentworth Laboratories, Inc..pdf

Connecticut Law