SWIENTON, JUDGE.
This matter was scheduled for a court trial on April 7, 2004. The plaintiffs appeared with counsel and the defendant, David W. Cady appeared pro se. The court having carefully considered all the evidence finds the following.
The plaintiffs are the owners of property located in Sterling, Connecticut. The defendant is a corporation that is engaged in the business of concrete installation, and specifically in this matter, the installation of a concrete walkway stenciled to give the appearance of brick. Sometime in May 2003, the plaintiff contacted the defendant after seeing an advertisement in order to have the defendant install a concrete walkway, dyed and stenciled to look like brick. The parties entered into an agreement to have the work completed for a price of $2,700.00. (Plaintiff's Exh. 2.) The work was completed, and the plaintiffs were satisfied with the walkway.
At some point the plaintiff began to notice that pieces of the concrete were breaking away on a section of the walkway and contacted the defendant. The defendant returned to the property and agreed to perform the repairs on the flawed section of the walkway. Upon completion of those repairs, the plaintiffs still were not satisfied with the work performed and brought this action.
The plaintiffs' court complaint alleges: breach of contract in that the defendant represented that his work was guaranteed for one year, breach of express warranty in that the defendant represented that he performed work satisfactorily for many homeowners and the town of Putnam as well as producing a sample of what the work would look like after completion and the work was not satisfactorily completed and not completed in accordance with the sample, and violations of CUTPA. CT Page 7427
As to the breach of contract and breach of express warranty claims, the court having considered all of the evidence presented to the court, finds that the plaintiff has not met its burden of proving the allegation of breach of contract and breach of express warranty and finds for the defendant.
As to the violations of CUTPA, the court finds for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claim that the contract for the installation of the walkway failed to comply with the Home Improvement Act ("HIA"), Chapter 400 of the General Statutes in that it failed to include the provisions required by General Statutes § 20-429(a)(4), (6) and (7), and as such are per se violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. ("CUTPA") under General Statutes § 20-427(c). In addition, the plaintiffs claim a violation of CUTPA due to the defendant's alleged false representations that he could properly perform the work and that his work was guaranteed for one year.
The court finds that the contract entered into between the parties did fail to comply with the Home Improvement Act in that it did not contain information required by HIA. Specifically, the contract did not contain the date of the transaction, a notice of the owner's cancellation rights, and a start and completion date. The court finds that the defendant's failure to comply with the act amounted to more than a mere technicality and constituted material noncompliance with the act's requirements. See, Kronberg Brothers v. Steele, 72 Conn. App. 53, 804 A.2d 239 (2002).
Having found the violation of the HIA, the court further finds a per se violation of CUTPA. General Statutes § 20-427(c). The court does not find any other basis for a violation of CUTPA.
"A party seeking to recover damages under CUTPA must meet two threshold requirements. First, he must establish that the conduct at issue constitutes an unfair or deceptive trade practice . . . Second, he must present evidence providing the court with a basis for a reasonable estimate of all the damages suffered." (Internal quotations marks omitted.) Jacques All Trades Corp. v. Brown, 42 Conn. App. 124, 130, 679 A.2d 27 (1996), aff'd, 240 Conn. 654, 692 A.2d 809 (1997). Under the first requirement, failure to comply with the act "is a per se violation of CUTPA by virtue of . . . [General Statutes] § 20-427(c), which provides that any CT Page 7428 violation of the Home Improvement Act is deemed to be an unfair or deceptive trade practice." (Internal quotations marks omitted.) Meadows v. Higgins, 49 Conn. App. 286, 296, 714 A.2d 51 (1998), rev'd on other grounds, 249 Conn. 155, 733 A.2d 172 (1999). The plaintiffs have satisfied this requirement.
As to damages, the plaintiffs provided the court with an estimate for a new walkway to be installed as evidence of the estimate of damages. This estimate, however, provides for the removal of the entire walkway installed by the defendant, and the installation of a different kind of concrete walkway involving "stamping" the concrete as opposed to "stenciling." This process is different from that provided for in the subject contract and is a more expensive process. The court finds the plaintiffs are not entitled to a different and more expensive walkway than the one contracted for and thus the actual damages were not proved by the plaintiff.
In accordance with the provisions of General Statutes § 42-110g, the court awards attorneys fees in the amount of $500.00 and court costs in the amount of $225.00.
For the foregoing reasons, judgment may enter accordingly in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant in the total amount of $725.00.
Swienton, J. CT Page 7429