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. ****************************************************** RICHARD C. MACDONALD v. ROBERT PINTO (AC 19669)
Zarella, Dranginis and Hennessy, Js. Argued December 7, 2000--officially released March 13, 2001 Counsel

Otto P. Witt, for the appellant (plaintiff). Edward B. Bradley. with whom, on the brief, were Robert A. Ziegler and Leslee B. Hill, for the appellee (defendant).
Opinion

ZARELLA, J. The plaintiff, Richard C. MacDonald, appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the defendant, Robert Pinto,1 in this breach of contract action. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) found that he failed to prove the existence of an oral contract for employment, a breach of that contract and damages, and (2) failed to determine the credibility of the witnesses. Because we determine that the court's findings of fact are contrary to the admissions of the defendant, we reverse the judgment and remand the case for a new trial.

The court, in its memorandum of decision, found the following relevant facts. The defendant hired the plaintiff and Steve Bilan2 as independent contractors in March, 1992. The parties orally agreed on the plaintiff's terms of employment. On March 30, 1995, the plaintiff terminated his employment with the defendant. Shortly thereafter, ``[t]he defendant notified the plaintiff through his attorney that [pursuant to their agreement, the plaintiff] was entitled to $9,602.17, which represented 25 percent of the difference between the accounts receivable and the accounts payable as of March 30, 1995.'' The plaintiff disagreed and ``demanded to be paid 25 percent of the accounts payable less the cost of materials, tooling and outside processing for each of the years he was an employee of the defendant.''3 The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to sustain his burden of proving the existence of the oral contract,4 ``pursuant to which the plaintiff would be paid, on a weekly basis, one quarter of the payables,5 less the cost of materials, tooling and outside processing.'' The court further found that the facts adduced at trial did not ``provide a basis for a determination of damages.'' ``As an appellate court, our review of trial court decisions is limited to determining whether their legal conclusions are legally and logically correct, supported by facts set out in the memorandum of decision. . . . Whether a contract . . . exists is a question of fact for the court to determine. . . . If the factual basis of the court's decision is challenged, our review includes determining whether the facts set out in the memorandum of decision are supported by the evidence or whether, in light of the evidence and the pleadings in the whole record, those facts are clearly erroneous.'' (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Keefe v. Norwalk Cove Marina, Inc., 57 Conn. App. 601, 605

Download MacDonald v. Pinto.pdf

Connecticut Law