Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Proctor

Summary

The dissent would conclude that no implied-in-fact contract was formed because the plaintiff’s letter and application objectively indicated that the defendant still had to sign and return the application and pay a deposit before assuming responsibility for service. It would therefore find the trial court’s contrary finding clearly erroneous and direct judgment for the defendant. The dissent contests the majority’s treatment of the written correspondence and its conclusion that the defendant’s conduct established an obligation to pay.