Barrett Builders v. Rhoda Miller

Summary

The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed summary judgment for the homeowner, holding that a contractor who fails to satisfy the Home Improvement Act's written contract requirement, General Statutes § 20-429, cannot recover in quasi contract—whether denominated quantum meruit or unjust enrichment—for the value of home improvements performed. Extending Caulkins v. Petrillo, the court reasoned that recovery for part or full performance under an unenforceable agreement is itself restitutionary, that restitution is unavailable for performance rendered under agreements unenforceable on public policy grounds, and that permitting quasi contract recovery would let contractors circumvent the statute's evidentiary and cautionary consumer-protection purposes. Justice Shea, dissenting, joined by Justices Callahan and Covello, would have permitted restitutionary recovery, arguing that § 20-429 functions like the statute of frauds, under which restitution is allowed, and that the majority's rule hands opportunistic homeowners a windfall at the expense of tradesmen.