Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Haddad v. Gonzalez, 576 N.E.2d 658 (1991)

Citation
Haddad v. Gonzalez, 576 N.E.2d 658 (1991)
Parent Document
Haddad v. Gonzalez, 576 N.E.2d 658 (1991)
Jurisdiction
Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date
1991-08-12

Other Sections in This Document (154)

Full Text

750 chars
This conflict with the structure of the statute is no mere technicality; it belies the fundamental illogic and unfairness of today’s ruling. The statute permits the award of double or treble damages as a penalty for the defendant’s wilfulness or knowledge in committing an unfair or deceptive act. Id. at 856. The award of actual damages for the intentional infliction of emotional distress also accounts for the perpetrator’s state of mind. See Payton, supra at 547, 554-555. Thus, the reason for awarding double or treble damages is absent in this context because, with the award of actual damages, the defendant’s culpable state of mind has already been penalized. -The piling on of multiple damages without justification is, at the least, unfair.