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
498 charsThe referee found that the defendants were benefited by retaining the deposit, that it was unjust of them to fail to return the deposit to the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs had sustained a detriment in the amount of $3700. The defendants retained money that rightfully belonged to the plaintiffs. That act was inequitable, and the defendants were unjustly enriched. The referee’s finding that the defendants were unjustly enriched therefore is not clearly erroneous. IV THE PLAINTIFFS’ DAMAGES