Section 47a-21
- Citation
- Section 47a-21
- Parent Document
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 2002-10-08
Other Sections in This Document (29)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
Full Text
372 charsThe referee found that because the defendants had violated § 47a-21 (d) (2) by not delivering the plaintiffs’ security deposit to them, the defendants had committed a CUTPA violation. The legislature and courts mandate a liberal reading of CUTPA. The referee’s finding is not clearly erroneous and will not be disturbed. Ill THE DEFENDANTS’ LIABILITY FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT