Opinion
File No. 34139
Where it was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant that the defendant should not be bound to accept and pay for musical equipment to be installed by the plaintiff unless the installation and performance of the equipment should be satisfactory to the defendant, it was a good defense, in an action to recover for labor and the installation of the equipment, that the installation was not satisfactory and that on the refusal of the plaintiff to remove the equipment the defendant removed and returned the equipment to the plaintiff. While the defendant's dissatisfaction was reasonable, it seems that the defendant would have been entitled to judgment even though the dissatisfaction was unreasonable.
MEMORANDUM FILED JUNE 21, 1943.
Louis Shafer, of New Haven, for the Plaintiff.
Daggett Hooker, of New Haven, for the Defendant.
Memorandum of decision in action to recover for labor and installation of equipment.
Plaintiff brings this action to recover of the defendant corporation the sum of $261.35 for labor and the installation of certain musical equipment in the latter's place of business. The decisive question in the case is whether, as specially pleaded by defendant, "it was expressly agreed by and between plaintiff and defendant (acting by and through its vice president and secretary, duly authorized) as part of said oral agreement that defendant should be under no obligation to accept said equipment and to pay said price or any part of it unless the installation and performance of said equipment should be satisfactory to defendant." It is sufficient to say that defendant further alleges that the installation, etc., "were not satisfactory" and that upon the refusal of plaintiff to remove the equipment it "removed and returned the same to plaintiff."
The court finds that the defendant has sustained the foregoing allegations contained in its special defense by the requisite burden of proof. Under the case of Zaleski vs. Clark, 44 Conn. 218, 223, it would appear that defendant is entitled to judgment even though the dissatisfaction manifested might be said to be unreasonable. But that apart, the court is of the opinion, and feels justified in finding from the evidence, that defendant's dissatisfaction with plaintiff's undertaking was reasonable. This aspect clearly warrants a defendant's judgment under the more liberal rule than that contained in the Zaleski case. See 3 Williston, Contracts (Rev. ed. 1936) § 675A, p. 1948; Restatement, Contracts § 265, Illustration 4, p. 381.