Suntech of Connecticut, Inc. v. YKK AP (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The plaintiff Suntech of Connecticut, Inc. is a glass contractor who installs custom walls and windows.   The defendant YKK AP America, Inc. is a manufacturer of frames and mullions.   The plaintiff was a subcontractor on Hamilton School Renovation Project (Hamilton Project) and the Worth Construction Co., Inc. (Worth) was the general contractor for the Hamilton Project.

During the early summer of 2006, the plaintiff sought proposals for the purpose of bidding on the custom wall package for the Hamilton Project.   In response to its request the defendant sent one of its representatives, Mark Knapp to discuss the project with the plaintiff.   Mr. Berkum, the plaintiff's president explained to the representative of the defendant that the windows required that they have a “renaissance” look and further required a “4 sided SSG curtain wall” and Berkan was assured the defendant could comply with these requirements.   On this basis, several proposals were reviewed by the plaintiff, that did not comply with these requirements although the defendant admitted that it could have complied.   The final plan it submitted did not, which caused the plaintiff delays in fulfilling its obligations to Worth Construction.

As a result, the plaintiff had to cover for the defendants' defalcation and obtained the product from EFCO incurring additional costs of $18,000.   As a further result of the delays the plaintiff incurred additional costs in the amount of $14,050 for protection of the window openings during the delays.

The plaintiff also claims that as a result of the delays caused by the defendant, the plaintiff lost profits on the Greenwich Police Station which was a project of Worth because of its unfavorable experience with the plaintiff on the Hamilton Project.  “It is incumbent on the party asserting either direct or consequential damages to provide sufficient evidence to prove such damage.”   Sullivan v. Thorndike, 104 Conn.App. 297, 304 (2007).   This was not done by the plaintiff with respect to the police station.   There was no certainty that the job with respect to the glass on the Greenwich Police Station would have been awarded to the plaintiff.

Finally, with respect to damages under Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, the plaintiff cannot prevail.  “A simple breach of contract does not offend traditional notions of fairness and, standing alone, does not offend Public Policy so as to invoke CUTPA.”  Greene v. Orsini, 50 Conn.Sup. 312, 315 (2007).

In sum, judgment shall enter in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant in the amount of $32,050.00 plus taxable costs.

Berdon, J.T.R.

Berdon, Robert I., J.T.R.