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

1,539 chars

To recover under M.G.L.c. 93A in a commercial leasing situation, a plaintiff must show more than a breach of an oral agreement to lease space. Madan v. Royal Indemnity Co., 26 Mass.App.Ct. 756, 762-63 (1989) (to establish violation of M.G.L.c. 93A, “the plaintiff must show ‘unfair or deceptive acts or practices’ other than [a mere] breach” of an oral agreement to lease space). A violation of M.G.L.c. 93A may be found where a commercial lessor induces a potential lessee to take detrimental actions in reliance on a series of false representations concerning a forthcoming lease that never materializes. Greenstein v. Flatley, 19 Mass.App.Ct. 351, 356 (1985) (M.G.L.c. 93A, §11 violation found where “the pattern of conduct of the defendant and its agents was calculated to misrepresent the true situation to the plaintiff, keep him on a string, and make the plaintiff conclude — reasonably— that the deal had been made and that only a bureaucratic formality remained”). In the instant case Cohen and Camiel engaged in a concerted pattern of conduct over a time period of at least one month calculated to mislead the plaintiffs into believing that Pleasures had the legal capacity to grant a sublease for a term of years and that the plaintiffs would definitely receive such a sublease. Because the conduct of Cohen and Camiel was misleading, “it fits comfortably ‘within at least the penumbra of some commonlaw, statutory, or other established concept of unfairness’ (citation omitted)” and establishes a violation of M.G.L.c. 93A. Id.

Other Sections in This Document (62)

Full Text