Section 4
- Citation
- Section 4
- Parent Document
- Solomon v. Birger, 477 N.E.2d 137 (1985)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 1985-04-22
Other Sections in This Document (85)
- Solomon v. Birger, 477 N.E.2d 137 (1985)
- Solomon v. Birger, 477 N.E.2d 137 (1985)
- Solomon v. Birger, 477 N.E.2d 137 (1985)
- Solomon v. Birger, 477 N.E.2d 137 (1985)
- Solomon v. Birger, 477 N.E.2d 137 (1985)
- Solomon v. Birger, 477 N.E.2d 137 (1985)
- Solomon v. Birger, 477 N.E.2d 137 (1985)
- Solomon v. Birger, 477 N.E.2d 137 (1985)
- Solomon v. Birger, 477 N.E.2d 137 (1985)
- Solomon v. Birger, 477 N.E.2d 137 (1985)
- Solomon v. Birger, 477 N.E.2d 137 (1985)
- Solomon v. Birger, 477 N.E.2d 137 (1985)
- Solomon v. Birger, 477 N.E.2d 137 (1985)
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
- Section 4
Full Text
797 charsNotwithstanding the cogent analysis of the majority, I am of opinion that the present posture of the record does not lend itself to an immediate resolution of the merits, because the defendants' claims are, for the most part, inappropriate for determination in a summary judgment proceeding. See Mass.R.Civ.P. 56(c), 365 Mass. 824 (1974). The defendants admitted, pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 36(a), 365 Mass. 795 (1974), that the purchase and sale agreement in the record is authentic and that it is a contract under seal. In their answer, they "admitted on information and belief" the allegation in the complaint pertaining to building code problems.[1] Section 9 of *645 the purchase and sale agreement appears to warrant that the building is in compliance with applicable local building codes.[2]