DocketNumber: No. CV95 32 08 04 S
Citation Numbers: 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 8925, 14 Conn. L. Rptr. 586
Judges: THIM, J.
Filed Date: 8/3/1995
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The plaintiff brings this action to collect commissions allegedly owed to him by the defendant. In a revised three count complaint filed on May 16, 1995, the plaintiff alleges that he entered into an agreement with the defendant whereby the plaintiff would sell the defendant's products in exchange for a ten per cent commission on all sales. In the first count of the revised complaint, the plaintiff asserts a breach of contract claim against the defendant. In the second count, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In the third count, the plaintiff asserts a claim pursuant to the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, General statutes §
"The purpose of a motion to strike is to contest . . . the legal sufficiency of the allegations of any complaint . . . to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Novametrix Medical Systems, Inc. v. BOCGroup. Inc.,
In determining whether a practice violates CUTPA, the following criteria, known as the "cigarette rule," are employed:
(1) whether the practice without necessarily having been previously considered unlawful, offends public policy as it has been established by statutes, the common law, or otherwise — whether, in other words, it is CT Page 8927 within at least the penumbra of some common law, statutory, or other established concept of unfairness; (2) whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; (3) whether it causes substantial injury to consumers [competitors or other businessmen].
McLaughlin Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.,
[A] violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy.
Vezina v. Nautilus Pools, Inc.,
A simple breach of contract, even if intentional, does not amount to a violation of [CUTPA]; a [claimant] must show substantial aggravating circumstances attending the breach to recover under the Act. . . .
Emlee Equipment Leasing Corp. v. Waterbury Transmission, Inc.,
To support his CUTPA claim, the plaintiff merely incorporates his breach of contract claim (as alleged in the first count) into the third count, and adds conclusory language that the defendant's "business practices constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of its trade or commerce. . . ." In so doing, the plaintiff fails to allege any substantial aggravating circumstances attending the defendant's alleged breach of contract which would bring the alleged breach within the purview of CUTPA. The plaintiff also fails to identify which of the defendant's acts were unfair or deceptive, or which of the defendant's acts were immoral, unethical, unscrupulous or offensive to public policy. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to allege a legally sufficient CUTPA claim. Accordingly, the defendant's motion to strike the third count of the revised complaint is granted. CT Page 8928