DocketNumber: No. CV-92-0512828S
Citation Numbers: 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 2586
Judges: DUNN, J.
Filed Date: 3/12/1993
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The court also finds that, regardless of whether the procedure described in paragraph 28 could be considered mandatory or voluntary, the plaintiff attempted to resolve its dispute with the defendant by corresponding in writing with the president of the defendant company and by meeting with the president. The defendant thereafter did not respond with any "decision" upon which the plaintiff could appeal to "the appropriate state agency" and there was no evidence presented that any "written record" was made pursuant to paragraph 28. Therefore, the court finds that even if the procedure described in paragraph 28 could be construed as CT Page 2587 mandatory, the plaintiff complied with that procedure to the extent that it could, and any failure to further comply was due to the failure of the defendant to comply with that procedure.
The motion to dismiss is denied.
Philip R. Dunn, J.