LLC v. Philip W. Cote, Sr. aka Philip W. Cote (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is a contract action in which the plaintiff seeks to recover the balance claimed to be owing to it by the defendant under a Customer Purchase Agreement (“agreement”), dated May 19, 2009, in which the plaintiff agreed to install a solar panel system (“system”) on premises owned by the defendant at 152 Pond Road, Franklin, Connecticut.   The plaintiff also seeks foreclosure of a mechanic's lien on the defendant's property.   The defendant, who is self-represented, claims that the system was improperly installed.

The court makes the following findings.

The agreement provides under “Breakdown of Costs” that the “Total System's Costs” are $49,282.00 and “Rebate from the CCEF (Connecticut Clean Energy Fund) is $26,532.00.”   The “Monthly Lease Payment” is $114.00.   Although the agreement does not specify the term of the lease, the evidence establishes a term of fifteen years, resulting in total payments of under the lease $22,750.00.   The defendant claims defective materials and workmanship in the installation of the system on his house and has made no payment under the agreement.

The defendant claims that, because of difficulty with his eyes, he could not read the agreement and should not be bound by it.   The agreement was signed by the defendant on May 19, 2009.   Under the terms of the agreement, the defendant had three business days from the date it was signed to cancel it.   During that time he could have had someone read the agreement to him, but he did not do so.  “The general rule is that where a person [who is] of mature years and who can read and write signs or accepts a formal written contract affecting his pecuniary interests, it is [that person's] duty to read it and notice of its contents will be imputed to [that person] if [that person] negligently fails to do so ․” Phoenix Leasing, Inc. v. Kosiniski, 47 Conn.App. 650, 654 (1998).   There was no coercion fraud or mistake and, accordingly, the defendant is bound by the agreement.

The plaintiff filed a request to admit in which the plaintiff requested the defendant in paragraph 6 to admit that the “value of the solar photo voltaic panels is $49,282.00.”   The defendant did not respond to the request to admit after he was advised by the clerk in the court clerk's office that he did not have to do so.   In view of the defendant's lack of knowledge of the effect of a failure to respond to a request to admit and the erroneous information given to him by the clerk, the court will not find that he has admitted that the value of the system is $49,282.00.

The defendant testified that the system was defective in many respects, including the installation of the panels in the valleys of the roof and at the wrong height, the drilling of the extra holes on the roof and improper wiring in the basement.   The defendant testified that he did not know the cost to repair the claimed defects nor did he know of any diminution in the value of his house caused by the defects.   Accordingly, the court can make no allowance to the defendant on his claim of defects in the system.

The rebate from CCEF in the amount of $26,532.00 was paid to the plaintiff and, at the time of trial and at the time of the arguments on the post-trial briefs, was in the possession of the plaintiff.   The plaintiff's owner testified that CCEF had requested the return of the rebate, but the plaintiff has not returned the rebate.   Since the plaintiff has the rebate in hand, the court must give credit to the defendant for it and the balance remaining under the agreement is $49,282.00 less $26,532.00 or $22,750.00.

In addition, the parties agreed that the plaintiff would remove the system from the defendant's house and allow him a credit of $10,000.00, less $2,000.00 for the cost of removal of the system, for a credit to the defendant of $8,000.00.   The defendant incurred costs of $900.00 to repair the damage to his house caused by the removal of the system, which results in a net credit to the defendants of $8,900.00.

Based on the above, the court determines the amount due from the defendant as follows:

Agreement price $49,282.00

Less rebate in possession of plaintiff $26,532.00

Balance due from defendant under agreement $22,750.00

Less credit to defendant for removal of system $10,000.00

Less cost of removal of the system $ 2,000.00

$8,000.00

Plus cost of repairs made by defendant 900.00

Net credit $8,900.00

Balance due from defendant $13,850.00

The agreement provides that the defendant is responsible to pay reasonable attorneys fees and costs associated with collections arising from the agreement.   The court awards $4,500.00 attorneys fees to the plaintiff, costs of $961.08 and interest at the legal rate since September 19, 2009.

Seymour L. Hendel, JTR

Hendel, Seymour L., J.T.R.