DocketNumber: No. CV90 026 98 79
Judges: LEVIN, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 11/8/1994
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The attorney trial referee found for the plaintiffs on both counts. However, the referee found that the sale of personal property by the plaintiff was not commercially reasonable pursuant to General Statutes §§
"The allegations of a complaint [or counterclaim] limit the issues to be decided on the trial of a case and are calculated to prevent surprise to opposing parties. 61 Amer.Jur.2d, Pleading, § 371; 1 Stephenson, Conn. Civ. Proc. (2d Ed.) § 99. "It is fundamental in our law that the right of a plaintiff to recover is limited to the allegations of his complaint. Nash Engineering Co. v. Norwalk,
The recommendation of the ATR cannot stand because the commercial reasonableness of the plaintiff's sale of the personal property was nowhere alleged in either count of the counterclaim. The plain error doctrine is inapposite because General Statutes § 47a-9-504(3) was not "an applicable statute" given the issues as framed by the counterclaim. The plaintiffs' objection to the acceptance of the report of the ATR is sustained. In light of the factual findings of the referee and the concessions of fact at the hearing before this court1 judgment may enter for the plaintiffs on the counterclaim.
BRUCE L. LEVIN JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT