Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-429
(P.A. 79-606, S. 12, 14; P.A. 86-94, S. 1; P.A. 88-269, S. 9; 88-364, S. 108, 123; P.A. 91-325, S. 3; P.A. 93-215, S. 1; P.A. 01-155, S. 1; P.A. 06-73, S. 14; P.A. 09-18, S. 2; P.A. 16-35, S. 3; P.A. 17-48, S. 18.)
Is not construed to apply doctrine of full performance. 200 Conn. 713. Cited. 209 C. 185; 215 Conn. 316; Id., 336; Id., 345. Absent proof of bad faith on part of homeowner, statute does not permit recovery in quasi-contract by contractor who fails to comply with requirement for written contract. Id., 350. Cited. 224 Conn. 231; Id., 240; 232 Conn. 666; 237 C. 123. Bad faith exception to the bar on a contractor's recovery under contracts that do not comply with section does not apply when a homeowner receives goods and services from a contractor in the belief that they ultimately will have to be paid for, but then repudiates the contract because the contractor's noncompliance with section gave rise to a genuine, good faith dispute about the scope of work or contract price. 325 C. 14. Cited. 18 CA 581; 20 Conn.App. 625; 24 CA 223; 27 CA 162; 33 Conn.App. 294; 35 CA 253; 38 CA 420; 40 Conn.App. 351; 43 CA 184. Requirement that a consumer is fully notified and understands his or her right to cancel a contract is central to Home Improvement Act; home improvement contract violated requirements of the act because contract and cancellation form did not have a transaction date. 72 CA 53. Neither the fact that plaintiff was represented by counsel throughout the process nor plaintiff's failure to raise noncompliance with the act until defendant raised a claim of nonpayment constituted bad faith without additional evidence. 122 CA 295. Under the bad faith exception, contractor is entitled to recover the value of the work performed but not additional damages provided for in the contract, such as attorney's fees, when the contract is otherwise unenforceable due to contractor's violation of section. 126 CA 94. Subsec. (a): Bad faith exception to enforcement of provisions discussed. 224 Conn. 231. Provisions of statute mandatory but strict compliance not required and contract valid even though 2 copies of cancellation notice not attached to contract and cancellation date not noted. 247 C. 218. Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that, because language of Subsec. mandates that all changes to a home improvement contract must be signed by both owner and contractor in order to be valid and enforceable, arbitration award based on 5 change orders that were not signed by owner were a manifest disregard of the law. 279 C. 300. Subsec. was not intended to supersede established principles of contract damages and allow a homeowner affirmatively to recover damages to which he would not otherwise be entitled; in an action brought by a homeowner against a home improvement contractor for breach of contract, Subsec. does not preclude the damages award from being reduced by an amount equal to the unpaid balance remaining on the contract. 290 C. 1. Cited. 18 Conn.App. 463; 31 Conn.App. 682; Id., 294; 45 Conn.App. 586. Because the contract in this case consists of 2 separate documents, the documents read together constitute a contract that satisfies section's requirements. 69 CA 136. Homeowner not responsible for contractor's failure to comply with the act, including contractor's failure to have homeowner sign contract before proceeding with work, failure to give homeowner notice of cancellation rights before beginning work, failure to include contractor's address, and failure to document changes from original plan in writing; the fact that contract was not signed by either party was not evidence that plaintiff waived compliance with the act or that plaintiff acted in bad faith. 121 Conn.App. 105. Failure of homeowner's contract with general contractor to comply with requirements of Subsec. does not bar subcontractor's right to recover against homeowner under mechanic's lien statute. 136 CA 184. Complete absence of a written contract that complies with Home Improvement Act, or at the very least a written and signed memorialization of changes in the terms and conditions of the original contract, as required by Subsec., cannot be deemed "minor and highly technical" deviation from the act. 48 CS 248. Subsec. (f): Damages may be awarded under theory of unjust enrichment even if all requirements of Home Improvement Act, revised to 2003, are not met. 307 C. 582. If court determines that requirements of Subsec. are met, it may award damages under a theory of unjust enrichment even if all requirements of Home Improvement Act are not met. 103 CA 566.
See Sec. 1-2a re construction of references to "United States mail", "postmark" or "registered or certified mail".