Craig Pyle v. David McDermott Auto Group (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The plaintiff has commenced this action seeking to recover damages from the defendant in six counts alleging:  breach of contract, misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment, conversion and violation of CUTPA.

The evidence has established the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a contract in which the plaintiff agreed to purchase a 2007 Hummer H.2. SUV from the defendant.   The contract dated September 18, 2006 stated the total contract price was $62,681.68.   The plaintiff paid the defendant $63,000.00 in cash for the vehicle as a deposit on account of the contract.   It was also agreed that the plaintiff would purchase after-market vehicle accessories and they would be delivered to the defendant for installation on the purchased vehicle.   Those parts included the following:  a hard Rear Tire Cover, performance exhaust system-catalytic converter back, hard tonneau cover roofrails and rear tail lamp guards.   The installation costs were never reduced to writing, and they resulted in a dispute between the parties for the labor.   The defendant had charged the plaintiff $3,824.63 plus sales tax for the labor charges.

On February 20, 2007 plaintiff was notified the vehicle was ready for delivery to the plaintiff with all the after-market parts installed.   The plaintiff refused to accept delivery and to pay the installation charges for the after-market parts.   Plaintiff also refused to pay an additional charge of $1,000.00 based upon the contract and the installation charges.   The defendant refused to accept delivery of the vehicle.   On March 21, 2007 the defendant notified the plaintiff that he had breached the contract in failing to pay the amounts due under the contract plus the installation costs of the after-market parts based upon the verbal agreement of the parties.

On April 16, 2007 the defendant refunded $57,090.67 to the plaintiff which resulted from a reduction of $5,909.13 due to the costs incurred by the defendant in restoring the vehicle for resale and restocking accessories.

The plaintiff contends the defendant breached the contract because the vehicle being delivered was missing a rear facing camera to aid in backing up.   Although the defendant then reordered a similar vehicle and plaintiff claims the defendant then tried to raise the prices for the new vehicle containing the rear facing camera.   Plaintiff also argues defendant breached the contract by taking $5,909.33 from the $63,000.00 deposit due to restocking, reinstallation and replacement charges.   Plaintiff also claims the defendant did not reimburse the plaintiff for the price of the after-market parts he had paid for and provided to the defendant for installation on the purchased vehicle.   The plaintiff contends the value of those parts was $6,487.04, and that represents a total of $69,487.94, for which defendant only returned $57,090.67.   Plaintiff therefore claims the defendant was unjustly enriched $6,488.61 by a sale of another vehicle with these parts attached resulting in a profit to the defendant.

On March 21, 2007 the defendant advised the plaintiff in a letter that defendant had added $4,656.00 in additional equipment which was installed on the vehicle as provided in the contract which equipment cost $3,824.64 and the total additional cost of these items was $8,993.00 plus sales tax.   The defendant then notified plaintiff he could be breaching the contract if he did not accept delivery of the vehicle and pay the additional charges, plus costs incurred by defendant in restoring the vehicle for resale and restocking of the parts requested by the plaintiff.

Based upon the evidence the court finds the defendant did not breach the contract because it did provide a proper vehicle after defendant re-ordered the vehicle as required by the contract.   The vehicle with the after-market parts were installed and conformed to the contract specifications.   The resulting disagreement of the parties was not based upon misrepresentation or fraud as claimed by the plaintiff.   The difference of opinion between the parties related to the plaintiff's refusal to pay for the installation of the after-market parts and that would not be a legal basis for this court to find a breach of contract by the defendant.   Based upon the testimony of Louis Krasenics this court finds the plaintiff was informed during the dealings between the parties that the cost of installation of the after-market parts would be an additional cost based upon posted hourly rates for the labor required.   He also testified that as a result of plaintiff's failure to accept delivery the after-market parts had to be removed and the vehicle had to be restored to a non-customed status to mitigate defendant's losses for a resale of the vehicle.

The claim of the plaintiff for violation of CUTPA has not been established by a fair preponderance of the evidence and it therefore is not found to be a basis of recovery for the plaintiff.

The evidence does establish the after-market cost of a windshield visor was $500.00 and the total wheel and tire package cost the plaintiff $5,987.94 and those items were not returned.   The total value of those items was $6,487.94, and they were ultimately sold by the defendant to a different purchaser with those parts attached.   Plaintiff contends he had provided $63,000.00 as a deposit plus the $6,487.94 for the total sum of $69,487.94.

This court finds the plaintiff's failure to accept delivery of the vehicle constituted an anticipatory breach of contract, and that precludes any recovery by the plaintiff for consequential damages.   Therefore, judgment is rendered for the defendant on all counts of the complaint.

Howard F. Zoarski, J.T.R.

Zoarski, Howard F., J.T.R.