Rossetti v. New Britain

163 Conn. 283 (1972)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The D common council authorized a committee to hire an architect to prepare plans and specifications for a new police station and courthouse. The resolution provided that the architect so engaged would be paid at the standard rates established by the Blue Book and as set forth by architects. The committee hired the firm Rossetti, DiCorcia and Mileto, as the architects to draw sketches and plans for the new building. P was notified by a telephone call from the mayor's office that his firm was awarded the architectural contract for the building. P's firm began working on the development of preliminary plans. By December 1957, the set of preliminary and basic working drawings for this project was completed. All architectural work and other work was done before December 31, 1957. After a preliminary estimate of $661,000 in connection with this project P prepared and developed a contemplated cost estimate in the amount of $700,000. The approximate cost of using P's plans including architectural fees was $ 750,000. By December 31, 1957, P's firm had completed 30 percent of the project and the blueprints were turned over to the chairman of the committee. P, was at all times in charge of this project to build a new courthouse and police station. Prior to the partnership dissolution on December 31, 1957, when P and Mileto took over from DiCorcia, P had given notice of this change during the latter part of November 1957, to the chairman of the building committee and no objection was made. When DiCorcia left all draftsmen, officers, secretaries' desks, books, supplies, and records remained at the firm office. The old firm was dissolved and a new partnership was formed in the name of Rossetti and Mileto. On April 12, 1963, P wrote to the chairman of the police board and advised him that a great deal of preliminary planning work had been completed and offered to complete the planning of the new facility for D. He also informed the mayor of D and offered to complete the work. The services of the P's firm were accepted by D. Expert testimony was offered that if the project cost was $700,000, $12,800 would be a fair fee based on 30 percent of the work. Testimony was also offered on the basis of 30 percent of the services being completed that the reasonable value of these services done by the plaintiff's firm based on a cost of $661,000 would amount to $12,300. D then terminated its relationship with P. P sued D for breach of contract and in quantum meruit. D got the verdict on the contract claim but P recovered un quantum meruit. Both parties appealed. D contends that the dissolution of the original partnership made it impossible for P to perform. D claims that the 'impossibility' resulted from the assignment of the contract by DiCorcia and Mileto to P. D contends that contracts for personal professional services cannot be transferred by assignment without the prior knowledge and consent of the other party, and since D had no notice and gave no consent to the assignment, it cannot be held liable under the contract.