Nota Construction v. Keyes, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 15
The Appeals Court ruled an engineer, who misrepresented job conditions and quantities in bid documents relied on by a subcontractor, could be liable for purely economic losses suffered by the subcontractor. The Court also ruled the engineer may be sued for multiple damages under c. 93A based on underlying claims of deceit, negligent misrepresentation and failure to act in good faith.
Lafayette Place v. B.R.A. and the City of Boston, 427 Mass. 509
The Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that the City of Boston cannot be sued for multiple damages under c. 93A even if it acts unfairly or deceptively, where its activities were motivated by legislative mandate.
Kelly v. Marx, 44 Mass. App. Ct. 825
The Appeals Court ruled liquidated damages were not recoverable under a written agreement despite defendant’s contract default where the Court determined plaintiff suffered no actual loss as a result of the default. The Court decided it was not enough that liquidated damages provided by the contract were reasonable when agreed to. They decided courts must take a second look to determine whether those liquidated damages were reasonable at the time of the default. The Court determined in this case they were not reasonable in the absence of any real damage, and constituted a contractual penalty which is unenforceable.
This
newsletter is intended to provide general information of interest to the
construction industry. It is not intended to provide specific legal advice or
to address fact specific issues. For that you should consult your legal
counsel. Corwin & Corwin LLP assumes no liability in connection with the
use of this newsletter. The Supreme Judicial Court may consider this material
advertising.
©1992-2000 Corwin & Corwin LLP. All rights reserved.