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

2,362 chars

within the province of the trial court. . . . The trial
court’s findings are binding upon this court unless they
are clearly erroneous in light of the evidence and the
pleadings in the record as a whole. . . . We cannot
retry the facts or pass on the credibility of the witness.’’
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Alarmax Distribu-
tors, Inc. v. New Canaan Alarm Co., supra, 141 Conn.
App. 329–30.
The question of whether the parties’ agreement lim-
ited their ability to make a modification without a writ-
ing, however, presents a legal issue subject to plenary
review. See RBC Nice Bearings, Inc. v. SKF USA, Inc.,
supra, 146 Conn. App. 298. As indicated previously in
this opinion, ‘‘[a] contract must be construed to effectu-
ate the intent of the parties, which is determined from
the language used interpreted in the light of the situation
of the parties and the circumstances connected with the
transaction. . . . Where the language of the contract
is clear and unambiguous, the contract is to be given
effect according to its terms. . . . Although ordinarily
the question of contract interpretation, being a question
of the parties’ intent, is a question of fact . . . [w]here
there is definitive contract language, the determination
of what the parties intended by their contractual com-
mitments is a question of law. . . . When . . . the trial
court draws conclusions of law, our review is plenary
and we must decide whether its conclusions are legally
and logically correct . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks
omitted.) Id., 298–99.
In the present case, the court did not make a finding
that the parties intended to modify their agreement.
The defendants argue that it was ‘‘clearly erroneous for
the trial court to fail to find that the plaintiff’s conduct
gave rise to a modification of the lease’’ on the basis
of the ‘‘uncontroverted evidence establishing the course
of performance . . . .’’
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 13

Other Sections in This Document (42)

Full Text