Solomon v. Birger, 477 N.E.2d 137 (1985)

Citation: Solomon v. Birger, 477 N.E.2d 137 (1985)
Parent Document: Solomon v. Birger, 477 N.E.2d 137 (1985)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 1985-04-22
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2048661/solomon-v-birger/ ↗

Full Text

1,036 chars

*637During the discovery phase of the case, the battle was fought over the buyers’ charge that the sellers had misrepresented and concealed the condition of the premises. The plaintiffs have conceded that a tort claim based on misrepresentation is time-barred, even giving effect to the extension provision which G. L. c. 260, § 12, makes available in case of fraudulent concealment.6 Rather, the plaintiffs urge two theories of recovery linked to the purchase and sale agreement, an instrument expressed by its terms as under seal, and upon which the plaintiffs argue they can, therefore, maintain an action within twenty years of the date the cause of action accrued. G. L. c. 260, § 1. The first of those theories is that the Birgers committed fraud in the inducement of the contract when Mrs. Birger made the “sonic boom” response to the painter’s inquiry about the crack in the arch. A second theory relies on a clause in the contract which required delivery of possession of the premises “not in violation of . . . building laws.”

Other Sections in This Document (85)

Full Text