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
632 charsThe referee also found that the defendants were hable to the plaintiffs under CUTPA for having engaged in unfair trade practices. General Statutes § 42-110b (a) provides: “No person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” The defendants raise the following two claims concerning the court’s award under CUTPA: (1) none of the facts found by the referee supports the referee’s conclusion that they violated CUTPA;1 and (2) the award was not sup*785ported by the evidence because the plaintiffs were not tenants of the defendants.2 We disagree.