Sec. 42a-2-508. Cure by seller of improper tender or delivery; replacement. (1) Where any tender or delivery by the seller is rejected because nonconforming and the time for performance has not yet expired, the seller may seasonably notify the buyer of his intention to cure and may then within the contract time make a conforming delivery.
(2) Where the buyer rejects a nonconforming tender which the seller had reasonable grounds to believe would be acceptable with or without money allowance the seller may if he seasonably notifies the buyer have a further reasonable time to substitute a conforming tender.
(1959, P.A. 133, S. 2-508.)
Automobile dealer did have the right to attempt to cure any defects in automobile, but this opportunity does not last for an indefinite period of time. 172 C. 112. Cited. 189 C. 433; 203 C. 342; 218 C. 297.
Plaintiff “accepted” goods upon purchasing stone from defendant and subsequently resold stone to a client who arranged for its installation; since there was no “rejection” of the goods, defendant did not have a right to cure within meaning of section. 47 CS 565.
Cited. 5 Conn. Cir. Ct. 447.
Nov 27, 2023
Superior
Hartford County, CT
Jan 26, 2024
Hartford County
Hartford County, CT
Sec. 42a-2-507. Effect of seller's tender; delivery on condition.
2 pages
HFH-CV22-6019756-S Superior Court Ansonia Acquisitions I, LLC, Housing Session d/b/a Woodcliff Estates (80 Washington Street Hartford, CT 06106) v. Annette Rodriguez …
Mar 28, 2022
4 pages
DOCKET NO.: NNH CV-12-6031105S = : SUPERIOR COURT NRT NEW ENGLAND LLC d/b/a Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN V. : ATNEW HAVEN CHRISTOPHER G. L. JONES : SEPTEMBER 23, 2014 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION On July 28, 2014 this court rendered a Memorandum of Decision finding that the plaintiff had proven damages of $34,375.00 on the second count. This court scheduled a hearing to determine the amount of attorney’s fees and costs, and the amount of the total judgmen…
Jul 10, 2012
7 pages
No. FST-CV15-5014471-S JEREMY COLLINS, f SUPERIOR COURT MOLLY MCCULLOUGH : Plaintiffs i JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD vs. : AT STAMFORD MARGARET MONTANARO Defendant : March 9, 2015 REVISED COMPLAINT FIRST COUNT 1 This is an action brought under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (hereinafter, "CUTPA"), Chapter 735a Section 42-110g of the Connecticut General Statutes in order to obtain relief against Defendant for alleged violations of General Statutes Section 42-110b(a), prohibiting …
Feb 17, 2015
7 pages
No. FST-CV15-5014471-S JEREMY COLLINS, : SUPERIOR COURT MOLLY MCCULLOUGH Plaintiffs : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD vs. | AT STAMFORD MARGARET MONTANARO Defendant : March 9, 2015 AMENDED COMPLA FIRST COUNT 1. is is an action brought under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (hereinafter, "CUTPA"), Chapter 735a Section 42-110g of the Connecticut General Statutes in order to obtain relief against Defendant for alleged violations of General Statutes Section 42-11 0b(a), prohibiting u…
Feb 17, 2015
9 pages
No. FST-CV15-5014471-S JEREMY COLLINS, z SUPERIOR COURT MOLLY MCCULLOUGH ie Plaintiffs : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD vs. AT STAMFORD MARGARET MONTANARO Defendant : April 24, 2015 REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT In the above entitled action, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that they be granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, which is appended to this request, pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book 10-60(a)(3). BY: St MA. e Jeremy Collins & Molly Mc@ulloug…
Feb 17, 2015
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Your content views addon has successfully been added.
No Worries!
Adding your team is easy
in the "Manage Company Users" tab
