Azar v. Quinn, 1 Mass. L. Rptr. 519 (1994)

Citation: Azar v. Quinn, 1 Mass. L. Rptr. 519 (1994)
Parent Document: Azar v. Quinn, 1 Mass. L. Rptr. 519 (1994)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 1994-01-15
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8351304/azar-v-quinn/ ↗

Full Text

1,295 chars

In addition, in the course of offering to sublease space Cohen and Camiel provided the plaintiffs with fragmentary information concerning Pleasures’ ownership in a manner that this Court finds was calculated to mislead the plaintiffs into believing that Camiel would remain as owner. At their initial meeting to discuss a sublease Cohen and Camiel represented to the plaintiffs that Camiel owned Pleasures without further communicating that Pleasures was for sale. Cohen knew that Camiel was then currently attempting to sell Pleasures. Then, in mid-August 1987, Camiel volunteered to the plaintiffs that she was bringing in Quinn as a new partner to help run Pleasures when, in fact, she was fully contemplating a sale of the entire business to him. This Court finds that the contemplated change in ownership of Pleasures was a material fact that Cohen and Camiel intentionally concealed from the plaintiffs by providing them with incomplete information about Pleasures’ current and future ownership. See Kannavos v. An-nino, 356 Mass, at 48 (“[f]ragmentaiy information may be as misleading ... as active misrepresentation”). The plaintiffs reasonably relied on Cohen’s and Camiel’s concerted misrepresentations of material facts to their detriment, rendering Cohen and Camiel liable in deceit.

Other Sections in This Document (62)

Full Text