holding that a court will not grant a motion to strike that imparts facts outside of the pleadings
How later courts described this case
- holding that a court will not grant a motion to strike that imparts facts outside of the pleadings
- where the legal grounds for a motion to strike are dependent upon facts not alleged in the plaintiff's complaint, the defendant must await the evidence at trial and the motion should be denied
- "absent proof of bad faith on the part of the homeowner, [the Home Improvement Act] permits no recovery in quasi contract by a contractor who has failed to comply with the statute's written contract requirement"
- when the legal grounds for the motion depend on underlying facts, parties must await evidence at trial and motion to strike should be denied
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Shea, J.,
with whom Callahan, J., joins, dissenting. For the reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion in Barrett Builders v. Miller, 215 Conn. 316 , 576 A.2d 455 (1990), I also dissent in this case, which further illustrates the inequity of imposing the penalty of forfeiture upon a tradesman who performs a home improvement without a contract conforming to General Statutes § 20-429.