In Wright Bros. Builders, Inc. v. Dowling, 247 Conn. 218, 720 A.2d 235 (1998) the Court held that practical and not perfect compliance was all that was required under the act, applied to the facts of the present case. Second, the court requested that the referee determine the significance, if any, of the fact that the contract was not prepared by the plaintiff, but by the defendants and their agents. Third, the referee was asked to determine the significance, if any, of the fact that the defendants and their attorney were familiar and experienced with the provisions of the act, as demonstrated by their involvement in Meadows v. Higgins, 249 Conn. 155, 733 A.2d 172 (1999). In addition to addressing those issues, the referee also was also instructed to complete the trial regarding the defendants' counterclaim. In Wright Brothers Builders, Inc., the Court held that letter perfect compliance with the provisions of the act is not required and that minor technical deviations from the act will not bar the contractor from recovery. Id. at 231. In Wright Bros. Builders, Inc., the Court held that the deviations from the act were highly technical in nature, and consisted of the absence of the cancellation notice in duplicate and the failure to enter certain dates on the cancellation notice that easily could be obtained from a brief review of the contract. Id. at 232-33.