The defendants now move to dismiss Counts II-VI against KLM Realty and Counts VIII-XII against Trustees. The defendants claim that plaintiff Dr. Gulati was a tenant-at-will and therefore no breach of express contract or warranty could have existed. The defendants next claim that Massachusetts does not recognize any implied warranties in a commercial lease, making counts V and XI invalid. Finally, the defendant claims that without a claim for breach of contract, quantum meruit cannot exist and even if a contract exists, defendant contends that Massachusetts does not recognize a right of recovery in quantum meruit in a commercial lease. In summation, the defendants claim that there are only two valid counts against them in the complaint: Counts I and VII. Further, the defendants claim that Trustees should not be a party to this suit because they have no legal liability2 In opposition, the plaintiff contends that there may be a basis for breach of express contract and warranties, although he does not cite any authority for this stance. Plaintiff also offered no proof in his memoranda in opposition or at oral argument to show that some express promises were made or contractual obligation was created. Plaintiff next claims that there is a basis for implied warranties in a commercial lease in Massachusetts. Finally, the plaintiff claims that there is a legal basis for quantum meruit as a result of the lease agreement between plaintiff and defendant. 3.Discussion