T & M Building Co. v. Hastings

Citations

• 194 Conn. App. 532

Syllabus

The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant seeking the specific performance of a contract for the sale of certain of the defendant's real property to the plaintiff. In 2010, T, the chief executive officer of the plaintiff, and the defendant created and signed a handwritten document reflecting their intention for the defendant to sell a parcel of certain real property to T for development into residential homes. The plaintiff hired L, an engineer, to develop plans and to obtain permits from the town and other governmental agencies. Thereafter, the defendant informed L that he was concerned with the drainage system in L's plans, which extended the drainage system into a portion of the defendant's property that he was not selling. A revised drainage plan required addi- tional governmental approvals, and without fully approved plans the plaintiff refused to close. The plaintiff subsequently instituted this action seeking specific performance and alleged claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel as a result of the defendant's failure to transfer the property to it. The trial court found in favor of the defendant on all counts of the complaint and rendered judgment thereon, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Held: 1. The plaintiff could not prevail on its claim that the trial court erred in determining that the document executed by the parties violated the statute of frauds: that court found that the document did not identify the buyer or seller, describe the property with definiteness, or define boundaries for the property or the size of the parcel, nor did it reference maps or other documentation that would define and describe the prop- erty, and it found that a phrase indicating a ''right to back out'' was so lacking in context that it was itself evidence that the document did not satisfy the statute of frauds, and because the document lacked essential terms required to satisfy the statute of frauds, the court d