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

923 chars

The ephemeral nature of unwritten representations and the natural tendency of persons to reconstruct history in a self-justifying manner are considerations which militate in favor of restricting the time in which an action may be founded on them. In choosing the correct limitations period we look to the essential nature of the action, not its form. Hendrickson v. Sears, 365 Mass. 83, 85 (1974). Here the essential nature is deceit. The plaintiffs’ theory would stretch the limitations period far beyond the extension already worked in cases of fraudulent concealment by the remedial provisions of G. L. c. 260, § 12. It is a theory we do not endorse. Even were we to adopt the plaintiffs’ reasoning, it would not help them. The asserted misleading statement was made several months after the parties signed the purchase and sale agreement and, therefore, could not have induced the plaintiffs to enter into the contract.

Other Sections in This Document (85)

Full Text