|
A Connecticut Court declined to vacate a construction arbitration award because the arbitrator's decision did not violate clear public policy as expressed in the state's home improvement statutes.
In Liew v. H & Y Const., Inc., FSTCV07040111665, 2007 WL 1414993 (Conn. Super Ct. Apr. 27, 2007), Liew contracted with construction company H & Y to make home repairs. Two years later, the parties amended the contract to include construction of a playroom.
The parties never signed the amendment, and H & Y performed substantial work on the project. After Liew failed to pay, H & Y requested arbitration. The arbitrator ruled for H & Y and awarded damages of $111,225.76.
Liew sought to vacate the award, arguing that the arbitrator's ruling was contrary to public policy. Liew contended that the Connecticut Home Improvement Act required "each change in the terms and conditions of a contract to be in writing and signed by the owner and contractor."
The Court concluded that the arbitrator's ruling did not violate clear public policy. The Court noted that requiring that changes to a contract be in writing and signed by the parties would not bar a contractor from receiving payment if it were inequitable to deny recovery. Moreover, the homeowners failed to cite any cases supporting their argument that the Home Improvement Act would bar a contractor from recovery for work performed pursuant to unsigned amendments or change orders.
The court stated that a state's public policy is not "determined by a narrow focus on individual provisions of a statute" but rather "in the consideration of the entire statute enacted by our legislature."
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|