Gateway Development/East Lyme, LLC v. Duong, 227 Conn. App. 38 (2024)

Citation: Gateway Development/East Lyme, LLC v. Duong, 227 Conn. App. 38 (2024)
Parent Document: Gateway Development/East Lyme, LLC v. Duong, 227 Conn. App. 38 (2024)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2024-07-30
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10131818/gateway-developmenteast-lyme-l... ↗

Full Text

2,160 chars

A.2d 211 (2003); Perez v. Carlevaro, 158 Conn. App.
       716, 722, 120 A.3d 1265 (2015). Accordingly, the court
       properly limited its analysis to the written terms of the
       agreement.
                                     II
         We next consider the defendants’ contention that the
       court improperly failed to find that the parties’ course
       of performance modified the terms of their sublease
       agreement to require the plaintiff to provide the defen-
       dants with a pretermination notice and a ten day cure
       period for the nonpayment of rent. The plaintiff argues
       that a written modification clause in the parties’ agree-
       ment precluded a finding of a modification based on
       any course of performance between the parties. We
       agree with the plaintiff.
          ‘‘For a valid modification to exist, there must be
       mutual assent to the meaning and conditions of the
       modification and the parties must assent to the same
       thing in the same sense. . . . Modification of a con-
       tract may be inferred from the attendant circum-
       stances and conduct of the parties.’’ (Emphasis in origi-
       nal; internal quotation marks omitted.) Alarmax
       Distributors, Inc. v. New Canaan Alarm Co., 141 Conn.
       App. 319, 329, 61 A.3d 1142 (2013). ‘‘A modification of
       an agreement must be supported by valid consideration
       and requires a party to do, or promise to do, something
       further than, or different from, that which he is already
       bound to do.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Har-
       ley v. Indian Spring Land Co., 123 Conn. App. 800,
       822, 3 A.3d 992 (2010).
          ‘‘The question of whether the parties to a contract
       agreed to a modification of its terms is ordinarily an
       issue of fact.’’ RBC Nice Bearings, Inc. v. SKF USA,
       Inc., 146 Conn. App. 288, 298, 78 A.3d 195 (2013), rev’d
       in part on other grounds, 318 Conn. 737, 123 A.3d 417
       (2015). ‘‘The resolution of conflicting factual claims falls
Page 12                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (42)

Full Text