Jury Backs Seller in Connecticut Real Estate Dispute
Table of Contents
Case Background
This contract dispute took place from a failed real estate transaction involving a two family home located on High Ridge Road in Bridgeport, Connecticut. Quinn Isaac, the Plaintiff, had agreed to purchase the property from Charles Weaver for $225,000 on February 14, 2023. He promptly paid a $1,000 deposit and began preparing for the closing. That included hiring legal counsel, applying for a mortgage, and completing all buyer side responsibilities required to close the deal.
Weaver, the seller, had also retained legal counsel and moved forward with initial steps. However, days before the scheduled closing, he backed out. According to the complaint, Weaver informed Isaac through his attorney on March 10, 2023, that he would not proceed with the sale. He reportedly stated that the foreclosure sale of the property had been postponed and that he believed he could sell it for a higher price. Weaver then listed the property at $325,000 and ultimately sold it for $362,000 on June 9, 2023.
Isaac responded by filing a three count civil complaint for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of the implied duty of good faith.
The event that led to the dispute
Isaac accused Weaver of reneging on a valid and enforceable purchase agreement. He pointed to the executed contract as proof that the seller had agreed to transfer the property in exchange for full payment of $225,000, including the payoff of the foreclosure debt. The deal had given Isaac the right to take ownership through a quitclaim deed once the debt had been settled. Isaac claimed that by walking away from the agreement, Weaver had denied him the benefit of his bargain.
Weaver's actions, Isaac argued, not only breached the written contract but also violated the basic principle of fair dealing. According to the Plaintiff, Weaver's decision to pursue a more profitable offer after accepting Isaac’s deposit showed clear bad faith.
Injuries Suffered
Isaac claimed that Weaver’s refusal to close the deal deprived him of the equity value he would have gained had the sale gone through. He argued that the property’s subsequent sale for $362,000 represented a $137,000 profit that rightfully belonged to him. Isaac also said he had incurred attorney’s fees and other costs related to the failed transaction, which added to his losses.
He sought damages under the contract and asked the court to award him attorney’s fees, along with any other relief it found fair and reasonable. His counsel emphasised that the harm had gone beyond financial loss, as the Defendant’s actions had wasted time and disrupted legitimate expectations.
Damages Sought
Isaac asked for monetary damages tied to the difference between the contract price and the final sale price. He believed he was entitled to the $137,000 profit margin, arguing that he had locked in a binding agreement before Weaver tried to walk away. He also requested payment of attorney’s fees, citing a clause in the original contract that required the seller to cover legal costs in the event of a breach.
Beyond the contract itself, Isaac included a claim for unjust enrichment, arguing that Weaver benefited unfairly at his expense by selling the property to someone else after accepting Isaac’s deposit and commitment. Finally, he invoked the implied duty of good faith, alleging that Weaver's conduct had intentionally undercut the trust essential in real estate deals.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Isaac filed the complaint on June 22, 2023, through attorney Andre Cayo. He attached the original contract and proof of the deposit. He also submitted property records showing that Weaver eventually sold the home for a significantly higher price than the one in their agreement.
In October 2023, Weaver responded with a full denial. He admitted only a few basic facts, such as his residence and the property's sale history, but rejected the allegations of breach and bad faith. Represented by attorney John R. Hall, Weaver raised two special defences. First, he argued that the contract explicitly gave Isaac only the right to record a lien in case of breach. Second, he claimed that both parties had mutually agreed to terminate the contract before the property was resold.
The case proceeded to a jury trial, where both sides presented their version of the events. Isaac insisted that he had done everything the contract required, including lining up financing and arranging for foreclosure payoff. Weaver, on the other hand, maintained that there had been no enforceable promise to sell and that Isaac’s only remedy was recording a lien, which he never did.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Quinn Isaac
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Andre Cayo
Defendant(s): Charles Weaver
· Counsel for Defendant(s): John R. Hall
Key Arguments by Counsel
Plaintiff’s attorney emphasised that the contract had been valid and binding, and that Weaver’s decision to walk away for a better price amounted to a textbook breach. He presented records showing Isaac’s intent and readiness to close, alongside the later sale listing and final sale price as proof that Weaver had chased profit at Isaac’s expense.
Defense counsel countered that no breach had occurred. He reminded the jury that the contract specifically stated that the buyer’s sole remedy in the event of default was to place a lien on the property. He said Isaac never exercised that option and thus forfeited any right to collect additional damages. He also argued that the parties informally agreed to terminate the deal after Weaver’s change of position, relieving him of further obligation.
Claims Asserted
Isaac brought three claims. The first was for breach of contract, based on Weaver’s failure to transfer the property as promised. The second was unjust enrichment, alleging that Weaver unfairly benefited by profiting from the deal Isaac had initiated. The third was a breach of the implied duty of good faith, which Isaac believed Weaver violated by backing out after finding a better deal.
Each of these claims sought monetary damages and enforcement of the contract’s attorney fee provision.
Defense Arguments
Weaver denied the breach and insisted that the agreement had not required him to go through with the sale. His main defense rested on a clause that limited Isaac’s recourse to filing a lien. He also claimed the contract had been mutually cancelled. No written termination was submitted, but the defense argued that both sides had moved on after March 10 and that no further efforts to close the sale had taken place.
He further denied that Isaac had suffered any real loss, stating that the buyer had failed to follow up with legal options that were available under the contract.
Jury Verdict
On April 10, 2025, the jury returned a verdict in favour of Charles Weaver. They found no breach of contract and awarded Quinn Isaac no damages. The jury accepted Weaver’s position that the contract either did not bind him to complete the sale or had been effectively terminated. The court entered judgment accordingly, ending the dispute without any financial recovery for the Plaintiff.
Court Documents