Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Citation
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Parent Document
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 1985-08-27
Other Sections in This Document (13)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
Full Text
862 charsThe entire addendum provided as follows: “In response to the plaintiff’s letter to the defendant itemizing the damage which he claimed was caused by the defendant’s tenants and the cost of repairing same, the defendant wrote a letter, in effect, rejecting the plaintiff’s claims (Exhibit C). In that letter the defendant states that it had been willing to concede the amount of $3600.00 for painting, although it believed this was not actually due. At the time that this letter was introduced into evidence the objection was made that it was a part of a settlement negotiation. The court rejected that objection but, upon further consideration of the contents of the letter and the context in which it was issued, now agrees with the defendant’s objection and rules that it is part of the settlement negotiation and therefore may not be considered by the court.”