is satisfied simply by a deprivation of the benefit of plaintiffs bargain. For example, in Rizzo Pool Co. v. Del Grosso, although the court denied defendants’ CUT-PA counterclaim because they failed to provide sufficient evidence of damages constituting ascertainable loss, the court indicated that it was a separate issue whether ascertainable loss could be claimed “by virtue of the fact that the plaintiffs failure to install the swimming pool deprived them of the benefit of their bargain.” 232 Conn. 666, 685 n. 30, 657 A.2d 1087 (1995). See also Hinchliffe, 184 Conn, at 614, 440 A.2d 810 (“Whenever a consumer receives something other than what he bargained for, he has suffered a loss of money or property.”); Larobina v. Home Depot, USA, Inc., 76 Conn.App. 586, 596, 821 A.2d 283 (2003) (<HOLDING>); Johnson Elec. Co. v. Salce Contracting
holding that proof of loss is not evidence of extent of loss and insured is not precluded from showing his damages were greater than shown in proof of loss holding that the loss of a contract failed to constitute ascertainable loss under cutpa holding loss of committee work may constitute adverse action holding that potential loss of a contract constitutes irreparable injury holding that loss of an arm includes loss of the hand