HADDEN, W., JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.
This is a civil action wherein the plaintiff is seeking money damages for the alleged breach of an oral contract by the defendants. The plaintiff is in the business of furniture refinishing in Cheshire, Connecticut, and the defendant Joseph Chiarelli is an attorney with an office in Hamden, where he is a member of the defendant Chiarelli Law Firm P.C. The action was filed originally as a small claims matter but was transferred to the regular civil docket by the defendant. The matter was tried before this court on November 18, 2004. The only witnesses were the plaintiff and Chiarelli.
The revised complaint alleges in substance that the plaintiff and the defendants agreed that the plaintiff would restore and change a piano into a desk, that the defendants agreed to pay for the materials used and the plaintiff's labor charges, that the work was done and the piano delivered, that the materials and labor charges were $3557, and that the defendants have not paid the bill. In its answer, the law firm denies the entire complaint. Chiarelli admits that the plaintiff agreed to restore and change the piano into a desk but denied all other allegations. The defendants also filed ten special defenses. The third special defense was withdrawn at trial. In substance the remaining special defenses allege certain improper motives on the part of the plaintiff in bringing this action, that the agreed price for the work was $1000, that the plaintiff and Chiarelli had a subsequent agreement whereby Chiarelli transferred ownership of the piano to one Thomas Ford, that Ford would be responsible for the conversion price, leaving Chiarelli with no obligation to the plaintiff, and that the job was never completed. In addition the defendants have filed a three-count counterclaim. The court severed the second count from this trial. The first count alleges that a certain letter sent by the plaintiff to Chiarelli, and certain utterances by the plaintiff, CT Page 18434 were libelous and have damaged the defendants' reputation. The third count claims that during the course of furniture renovation and repair projects the plaintiff removed parts and Chiarelli delivered parts to the plaintiff, and that Chiarelli has demanded return of these parts but the plaintiff refuses to return them.
The court finds the following facts and reaches the following conclusions. The plaintiff has been in the business of finishing and repairing furniture for approximately nineteen years, with a shop located in Cheshire. Over the last ten to twenty years he had done between ten and twenty jobs for both defendants. On the previous jobs he had never reflected hourly charges on the bill but the price he agreed on was based on his estimate of the time the particular job would take. The plaintiff had previously worked on a piano for one of the defendants where he removed the insides, re-designed it, and modified it into a desk at a set price of $1500. The plaintiff was paid for this work by Chiarelli or the law firm handling the plaintiff's bankruptcy. The plaintiff lost money on the first piano job.
The piano which is concerned with this litigation was delivered to the plaintiff's shop by Chiarelli in the summer of 1999. The piano required extensive reconstruction and repairs, and was in much worse shape than the first piano. The plaintiff told Chiarelli that he would not work on this piano for the price he agreed to on the first piano because he had "lost his shirt" on that job. He told Chiarelli that he would have to charge by the hour. The plaintiff did not give Chiarelli an estimate of the hours the job would take or tell him the hourly rate. The plaintiff's labor rate was $40 an hour, and a sign to this effect is on the wall in the shop. Chiarelli did not ask for an estimate of the number of hours the job would take or the hourly rate.
The plaintiff started work on the piano in mid December 1999 and finished the job three or four weeks later. On several occasions while the plaintiff had the piano he reminded Chiarelli that he was keeping track of his hours on this job. Chiarelli had told the plaintiff that his piano would someday belong to Chiarelli's grandson. On an occasion when Chiarelli was picking out the color and leather for the piano he told the plaintiff that he was giving the piano to his friend Tom Ford. Chiarelli claims that the agreed price for the work on the piano was $1000 and that he, the plaintiff, and Ford, agreed that in exchange for Ford receiving the piano, Ford would be responsible for the $1000 which would be credited against certain duct work that Ford was CT Page 18435 going to do for the plaintiff at his shop. The plaintiff did need certain duct work done and at one point he and Ford had agreed on a price of $850, but he decided not to use Ford and had the work done by someone else. The plaintiff denies that he ever agreed to having Ford be responsible for the charges on the piano. Chiarelli and Ford picked up the piano on January 17, 2000, using Ford's truck, and the piano is in the possession of Ford. That Chiarelli chose, for some unexplained reason, to give the piano to Ford does not relieve Chiarelli of his responsibility to pay for the work on the piano. The court finds that no such agreement involving Ford, as claimed by Chiarelli, was made, and that Chiarelli is responsible for the charges for the work on the piano. The agreement between the plaintiff and Chiarelli required Chiarelli to pay a reasonable hourly rate for the time required to do the job plus the cost of materials. The court finds that the plaintiff's bill reflecting labor of eighty-four hours at $40 per hour, plus the cost of materials of $197, plus sales tax of $213.42, for a total of $3770.42, is a fair and reasonable charge, and is in accordance with the oral agreement between the plaintiff and Chiarelli.
The court finds that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the law firm is liable for these charges. The court finds that the defendants, except for the first special defense alleging that the law firm was not a party to the transaction, have failed to prove any of the remaining eight special defenses.
The first count of the counterclaim makes a claim on behalf of both defendants of libel. Chiarelli testified that a letter sent by the plaintiff to Chiarelli on February 9, 2000 is libelous. The court finds that the letter, which is in evidence as Exhibit B, is not libelous as to either defendant.
The third count of the counterclaim alleges that the plaintiff is in possession of "parts" from furniture, that the parts are unique antique parts, that one of the defendants has demanded their return, that the plaintiff refuses to return them, and that there is no adequate remedy at law. By way of relief the defendants seek a return of the parts and treble damages in accordance with General Statutes § 52-564. The evidence indicates that the plaintiff is in possession of some parts and that they may be picked up by the defendants. The defendants have failed to prove that the plaintiff has refused to return them.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, judgment may CT Page 18436 enter on the complaint in favor of the plaintiff as against the defendant Chiarelli in the amount of $3770.42. Judgment may enter on the complaint in favor of Chiarelli Law Firm P.C. Judgment may enter in favor of the plaintiff LeClerc on counts one and three of the counterclaim.
Hadden, Judge Trial Referee CT Page 18437