Matar v. Laface, 122 N.E.3d 1100 (2019)
- Citation
- Matar v. Laface, 122 N.E.3d 1100 (2019)
- Parent Document
- Matar v. Laface, 122 N.E.3d 1100 (2019)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 2019-01-22
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7178558/matar-v-laface/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (8)
- Matar v. Laface, 122 N.E.3d 1100 (2019)
- Matar v. Laface, 122 N.E.3d 1100 (2019)
- Matar v. Laface, 122 N.E.3d 1100 (2019)
- Matar v. Laface, 122 N.E.3d 1100 (2019)
- Matar v. Laface, 122 N.E.3d 1100 (2019)
- Matar v. Laface, 122 N.E.3d 1100 (2019)
- Matar v. Laface, 122 N.E.3d 1100 (2019)
- Matar v. Laface, 122 N.E.3d 1100 (2019)
Full Text
513 charsWhen Matar moved for summary judgment, the motion judge agreed that it was warranted, concluding that the MOU was an enforceable contract, and he ordered the entry of judgment for Matar. On appeal, the sole argument raised by Laface is that there is a genuine issue of material fact whether the parties intended to be bound by the MOU. In support of this argument Laface relies on his affidavit stating that he did not intend to be bound by the MOU, but only by the settlement agreement, which was never executed.