DocketNumber: No. CV99 033 78 58 S
Citation Numbers: 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 10843, 28 Conn. L. Rptr. 128
Judges: MORAGHAN, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 9/5/2000
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
Counts two through four essentially mirror count one, with the following changes. Count two alleges that on or about September 22, 1998, Haddad agreed to sell, and that DCHA agreed to pay for, demolition services at a cost of forty thousand ($40,000) dollars. Count three alleges that on or about January 20, 1999, DCHA acknowledged that a balance of eighteen thousand ($18,000) dollars was due to Haddad for the services rendered. Count four includes the additional illegation that DCHA benefitted [benefited] from the services, and, because of its failure to pay, was unjustly enriched. DCHA now moves to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to §
Section
It is undisputed that DCHA executed an acknowledgment containing a forum selection clause purporting to subject the parties of the transaction to the jurisdiction of Connecticut federal and state courts. DCHA, however, argues that the notice of purchase of accounts receivable is not a valid, binding contract. DCHA also contends that the Connecticut long arm statute does not extend jurisdiction over it. Finally, DCHA maintains that assuming, arguendo, that the long arm statute does extend jurisdiction over it, constitutional principles of due process would be violated. The court will address these arguments seriatim.
In Total Telecommunications, Inc. v. Target Telecommunications, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of Ansonia-Milford at Milford, Docket No. 053516 (March 11, 1997, Corradino, J.), the court adopted a two-step analysis to determine whether to enforce a forum selection clause. See also IDV North America, Inc. v. Siranno, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford at Hartford, Docket No. 058059 (September 9, 1999,Teller, J.). These steps are: first, the court must analyze the contract formation itself and determine if there was fraud, deception or uneven bargaining power. Second, the court must determine whether the inconvenience resulting to the party bringing suit-would be so great if CT Page 10845 it had to go to another forum to prosecute its action, that the court should not enforce an otherwise valid contractual provision.
DCHA argues that although the Total Telecommunications court focused its analysis on fraud, deception or uneven bargaining power in determining whether a contract is enforceable, if an agreement is invalid and non-binding due to defective formation, the result should be the same.2 Phoenix Leasing, Inc. v. Kosinski,
DCHA contends that the alleged agreement is unenforceable under the preexisting duty rule. "To be enforceable, a contract must be supported by valuable consideration.... The doctrine of consideration is fundamental in the law of contracts, the general rule being that in the absence of consideration an executory promise is unenforceable." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Connecticut National Bank v.Voog,
Brookridge points to no new consideration in exchange for the forum selection clause, but rather argues that the recital of consideration is prima facie evidence of consideration. In support of this argument, Brookridge cites Raymond v. Sellick,
An examination of the notice of purchase of funds receivable, identical copies of which have been furnished to the court by each party, reveals no language of consideration. DCHA had a preexisting duty to pay, barring some defense. There exists no allegation in the complaint that DCHA received any consideration for agreeing to the forum selection clause, such as a forbearance or an extension.4 The court finds that DCHA's agreement to this clause was merely a gratuity, as there was no consideration for it. Ergo, the forum selection clause is not enforceable, unless the court deems DCHA to have consented to in personam jurisdiction by promissory estoppel.
Brookridge argues that the court should invoke its equitable powers and conclude that DCHA is precluded from evading the forum selection clause by promissory estoppel. "Under the law of contract, a promise is generally not enforceable unless it is supported by consideration. . . . This court has recognized, however, the development of liability in contract for action induced by reliance upon a promise, despite the absence of common-law consideration normally required to bind a promisor. . . . Section 90 of the Restatement Second states that under the doctrine of promissory estoppel [a] promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)D'Ulisse-Cupo v. Board of Directors of Notre Dame High School,
"When issues of fact are necessary to the determination of a court's jurisdiction, due process requires that a trial-like hearing be held, in which an opportunity is provided to present evidence and to cross-examine adverse witnesses." Standard Tallow Corp. v. Jowdy,
For example, the notice of purchase of accounts receivable is CT Page 10847 contradictory by its terms. The title and the first sentence of the notice, which reads "[n]otice is hereby provided to you that Brookridge Funding Corporation ("BFC") has purchased the accounts receivable of APH Wrecking Co.," would indicate that Brookridge already owned the receivables in question, and thus, DCHA could not induce Brookridge to purchase them because Brookridge already had done so. (Emphasis added.) The second paragraph, however, provides that DCHA made recorded representations "[t]o induce BFC to provide financial services to assignor," which would imply that Brookridge had not already purchased the accounts receivable. Another open question is the extent to which Brookridge relied on the notice, and the forum selection clause in particular, when it purchased the receivables.
DCHA will be deemed to have consented to jurisdiction of the Connecticut courts as per the terms of the notice if DCHA reasonably should have known that it would induce Brookridge's reliance by signing the notice, if Brookridge relied on the notice in purchasing the receivables, and if injustice can be avoided only by holding DCHA to the terms of the notice. See D'Ulisse-Cupo, supra. A hearing is necessary to make this determination because promissory estoppel is the only available basis to establish in personam jurisdiction over DCHA.
A hearing would not be necessary if the Connecticut long arm statute provided for jurisdiction over DCHA, See Knipple v. VikingCommunications. Ltd.,
Connecticut's long arm statute confers jurisdiction where the cause of action arises out of a contract made or to be performed in this state. See §
Section §
The third alternative for establishing jurisdiction pursuant to the long arm statute, requiring the "production, manufacture, or distribution of goods . . . to be used or consumed in this state," similarly does not provide the court with jurisdiction over DCHA. General Statutes §
Finally, "tortious conduct in this state;" §
DCHA, in addition, also argues that even assuming, arguendo, that the long arm statute establishes jurisdiction over it, the exercise of jurisdiction over it would violate constitutional principles of due process. Brookridge does not contest this argument either, and as the court has found that the long arm statute does not confer jurisdiction, a ruling on this issue is unnecessary. See Knipple v. VikingCommunications. Ltd., supra.
Because the court finds that the forum selection clause is unenforceable for lack of consideration, and that the relevant long arm statute does not permit it to find jurisdiction over DCHA, the only remaining basis for this court to assert in personam jurisdiction over DCHA is Brookridge's reliance on promissory estoppel. Due process requires this court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel requires that the court deem DCHA to CT Page 10849 have consented to jurisdiction in this court. See Standard Tallow Corp.v. Jowdy, supra, until such a hearing is held and unless that hearing establishes such promissory estoppel, the motion to dismiss is, accordingly, granted.
Moraghan, J.