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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7910185/zenon-v-r-e-yeagher-management-corp/ ↗

Full Text

1,523 chars

The court in Hastings Associates, Inc., then analyzed these factors in light of the facts of that case. The court found that the plaintiffs illegal use of the license was not incidental to the plaintiffs claim and that this element so permeated the parties’ transaction as to be controlling. Id., 176. As to the plaintiffs claim that it would suffer a substantial forfeiture and the defendant a windfall, the court stated: “While the cases bespeak a judicial tolerance for relatively insubstantial violations of licensing statutes or regulations, particularly when failure to enforce the contract results in substantial unfairness to one or both contracting parties, the public interest in freedom of contract is sometimes outweighed by public policy, and in such cases the contract will not be enforced.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 177. Citing 2 Restatement (Second), supra, § 181,3 the court concluded that the liquor licensing requirements are for the protection of the public and common good; Hastings Associates, Inc. v. Local 369 Building Fund, Inc., supra, 42 Mass. App. 177-78; and “[h]ere, where the plaintiffs application for its own license was denied, the parties by their arrangement effectively substituted their own judgment for that of the local licensing authority. To permit the plaintiff to recover under its illegal arrangement would reward it *331for its illegal conduct and would contravene public policy by elevating the plaintiffs private interests over those of the public.” Id., 178.

Other Sections in This Document (41)

Full Text