Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Citation
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Parent Document
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 2000-04-18
Other Sections in This Document (41)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
- Section 181
Full Text
1,599 charsHastings Associates, Inc., involved a claim for breach of a lease agreement. On appeal, the defendant claimed that the plaintiffs contract claim was barred because the lease agreement was predicated on an illegal transfer of the defendant’s liquor license. Hastings Associates, Inc. v. Local 369 Building Fund, Inc., supra, 42 Mass. App. 173. The Massachusetts Appeals Court agreed with the defendant and concluded that the agreement was unenforceable. Id. The court found that the parties’ actions pursuant to the lease agreement effectively resulted in an illegal transfer of the defendant’s liquor license to the plaintiff in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws c. 138, §§ 2 and 23. Id., 174. The court, however, held that the finding of an illegality alone was not sufficient to invalidate the agreement. Id.,175. “[CJourts do not go out of their way to discover some illegal element in a contract or to impose hardship upon the parties beyond that which is necessary to uphold the policy of the law .... We must examine and weigh all of the circumstances: what was the nature of the subject matter of the contract; what was the extent of the illegal behavior; was that behavior a material or only an incidental part of the performance of the contract . . . what was the strength of the public policy *330underlying the prohibition; how far would effectuation of the policy be defeated by denial of an added sanction; how serious or deserved would be the forfeiture suffered by the plaintiff, how gross or undeserved the defendant’s windfall.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.