Sec. 42-110a. Definitions. - Connecticut Statutes

      Sec. 42-110a. Definitions. As used in this chapter:

      (1) "Commissioner" means the Commissioner of Consumer Protection;

      (2) "Documentary material" means the original or a copy of a book, record, report, memorandum, paper, communication, tabulation, map, chart, photograph, mechanical transcription, or other tangible document or recording, wherever situate;

      (3) "Person" means a natural person, corporation, limited liability company, trust, partnership, incorporated or unincorporated association, and any other legal entity;

      (4) "Trade" and "commerce" means the advertising, the sale or rent or lease, the offering for sale or rent or lease, or the distribution of any services and any property, tangible or intangible, real, personal or mixed, and any other article, commodity, or thing of value in this state.

      (P.A. 73-615, S. 1, 16; P.A. 78-346, S. 1; P.A. 95-79, S. 154, 189; June 30 Sp. Sess. P.A. 03-6, S. 146(c); P.A. 04-189, S. 1.)

      History: P.A. 78-346 redefined "trade" and "commerce" to include rent and lease of services or property; P.A. 95-79 redefined "person" to include a limited liability company, effective May 31, 1995; June 30 Sp. Sess. P.A. 03-6 replaced Commissioner of Consumer Protection with Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Protection, effective July 1, 2004; P.A. 04-189 repealed Sec. 146 of June 30 Sp. Sess. P.A. 03-6, thereby reversing the merger of the Departments of Agriculture and Consumer Protection, effective June 1, 2004.

      Cited. 186 C. 507. Secs. 42-110a to 42-110g, inclusive, cited as CUTPA (Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act). Determination of "unfair practice" discussed. 192 C. 558. Cited. 211 C. 613. Cited. 225 C. 70. Cited. 230 C. 148. Cited. 231 C. 707. Cited as Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) 42a-110a et seq., condominium mismanagement not within purview of CUTPA. 245 C. 504. Most significant question in considering CUTPA claim against an attorney is whether the allegedly improper conduct is part of attorney's professional representation of a client or is part of the entrepreneurial aspect of practicing law. 260 C. 766. Trial court properly concluded that the degree to which speeding fee, because it was a penalty, violated public policy was sufficient to find a CUTPA violation without addressing remaining criteria of the cigarette rule. 273 C. 296. Trial court properly granted airport defendant's motion to strike CUTPA claim. 275 C. 105.

      Cited. 21 CA 275. Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) Sec. 42-110a et seq. cited; medical malpractice claims recast as CUTPA claims cannot form basis for a CUTPA violation. 52 CA 487. Defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duty to plaintiff entitled plaintiff to damages, including reimbursement of any improper fees and charges, interest for loss of use of profits and a constructive trust over profits defendants received through improper use of partnership funds, and constituted a violation of CUTPA because defendants' actions clearly placed them in direct competition with the interests of the partnership; trial court reversed. 57 CA 121. Where use and occupancy of apartment incidental to employment and not a tenancy, plaintiff could not prevail under CUTPA claim. 59 CA 704. Plaintiff, who established that defendant refused to sell and install carpeting at price originally quoted to plaintiff, suffered the loss of his contract and, therefore, sustained an "ascertainable loss" as result of an unfair trade practice. Accordingly, plaintiff was entitled to punitive damages under CUTPA. 76 CA 586. Defendants did not violate Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA); trial court's assessment of dispute as intracorporate and outside purview of CUTPA was not clearly erroneous. 91 CA 619.

      Cited as Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) 42a-110a et seq., condominium mismanagement not within purview of CUTPA. 45 CS 341. Cited as Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) 42-110a et seq.; motion to strike complaint alleging unfair trade practices denied in case involving delivery system of a mail order pharmaceutical service; such delivery operation was entrepreneurial. 49 CS 388.

      Subdiv. (3):

      Cited. 203 C. 342. Cited. 230 C. 486. Cited. 232 C. 480. Cited. 238 C. 183.

      Subdiv. (4):

      Cited. 190 C. 510. Cited. 200 C. 172. Cited. 216 C. 65. Cited. 230 C. 486. Cited. 232 C. 480. Cited. 238 C. 183. Cited. 243 C. 17.

      Cited. 28 CA 660.

      Cited. 36 CS 183. Cited. 43 CS 431.