Contracts · MBE-tested

BICC BRAND-REX COMPANY v. ARTHUR, HARRIS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

48 Conn. App. 423·Connecticut Appellate Court·1998·CT

Brief incoming

Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.

Opinion

BICC BRAND-REX COMPANY v. ARTHUR, HARRIS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. (AC 17076) O’Connell, C. X, and Foti and Landau, Js. Argued March 4 officially released April 14, 1998 David R. Scott, for the appellant (plaintiff). Stuart G. Blackburn, for the appellee (defendant). [MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.] Opinion PER CURIAM. This appeal implicates Connecticut’s corporate long arm service of process statute. General Statutes § 33-929 (f) (1). The dispositive issue in this case is whether the contract between the parties was to be substantially performed in this state. The trial court found as a fact that the contract was to be substantially performed outside Connecticut. That factual finding was supported by the evidence and, thus, cannot be overturned by this court. See Cromwell Commons Associates v. Koziura, 21 Conn. App. 1, 5, 570 A.2d 1131 (1990). The judgment is affirmed.