This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P contracted with D to build a pool. P decided on a peanut shaped pool with a circular six-foot interior spa. The salesman drew a contract for the construction of a 'custom' shaped pool, forty feet long by twenty feet wide. D arrived at the property to commence excavation. He showed P a picture of the kidney-shaped pool he planned to dig and laid out staking. P told D that the picture he was showing her did not look like the pool she was expecting. D assured her that the pool would look like she expected it to when completed. The excavation was in the shape of a kidney. After the excavation was complete, a crew arrived to install the steel frame (rebar). An electrician and plumber also did work at the property. The rebars outlined an almond-shaped spa, not a circular spa. P eventually contacted D about an increase in costs and before he could complain about the shape D hung up on P. P ordered D to discontinue all work at the property. On September 20, 1998, D sent a letter to Ps in which it offered to complete the pool at the property with a circular spa. There was never an offer to reconfigure the pool in a peanut shape. Ps sued D for breach of contract, unjust enrichment and unfair trade practices in violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. D filed a counterclaim, alleging breach of contract. The court awarded damages in the amount of $ 10,618.63 to P. The court rendered judgment for the defendant for the claims of unjust enrichment and unfair trade practices, and Ps on D's counterclaim. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.