Richard Murphy v. Ardelle Cowie (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR PREJUDGMENT REMEDY

After a careful reading of the alleged contract in this claimed breach of contract action the Court cannot make a finding that there is probably cause to believe that the plaintiff will recover a judgment in this case in the amount of the prejudgment remedy sought.  Connecticut General Statutes § 52-278d(a) which governs prejudgment remedies requires that the court “finds that the plaintiff has shown probable cause that a judgment in his favor will be rendered in the amount of the prejudgment remedy sought.”

The problem with this case for the plaintiff is that the “contract” drafted by the defendant, in the Court's opinion, lacks certain requisites required by the law of contracts to be present in order for an alleged agreement to constitute an enforceable contract.

The Court believes that there is an issue that the trial court must decide, that is, whether the “Chelsea Constitution” is a meeting of the minds so as to find that it constitutes an enforceable contract, or whether the plaintiff left his employment because of a reduction in salary which the defendant imposed due either to dissatisfaction with the plaintiff's job performance or was it a necessary reduction in salary because of economic condition affecting the defendant's business.   Accordingly the plaintiff's motion for prejudgment remedy is denied.

Skolnick, J.T.R.

Skolnick, David W., J.T.R.