· 6/3/2025

Hadji v. Snow

Citations

  • 232 Conn. App. 829

Syllabus

The defendants, a real estate developer, S, and six limited liability companies that S owned or controlled, appealed from the trial court's judgment for the plaintiff on his breach of contract claim and with respect to special defenses and a counterclaim filed by the defendants. The defendants claimed, inter alia, that the court improperly determined that there was proper consideration to support the parties' written agreement relating to the plaintiff's employment. Held: The trial court's implicit finding that S had apparent authority to bind the defendant F Co. to the agreement was not clearly erroneous because F Co., by placing S in a position of authority as the manager of the company and permitting him to carry on business for the company, created an appearance that S had authority to manage the company, which could have included entering into an employment contract with an employee on behalf of F Co., and the plaintiff reasonably could have believed that S had authority to enter into the agreement on behalf of F Co. The defendants' claim that the trial court improperly determined that there was proper consideration to support the agreement as to each of the defen- dant companies failed because the defendants did not address the court's findings that the plaintiff's promises to continue to perform work for the defendant companies after the execution of the agreement and to relinquish his membership interest in one of the defendant companies constituted adequate consideration for the defendants' promise to make payments to the plaintiff as set forth in the agreement, and, accordingly, the defendants failed to meet their burden of demonstrating error in the court's ruling. This court declined to review the defendants' claims that the trial court improperly failed to find that the interest charged under the agreement was unconscionable and that certain correspondence between the plaintiff and S was part of the agreement, as those claims were inadequately briefed.

Judges: Elgo; Suarez; Seeley

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.