Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): according to its terms.” Freelander v. G.&K. Realty Corp., 357 Mass. 512, 516 (1970). Thus, Defendant’s liability for breach could not exceed $480 per year, pursuant to the freely-negotiated limitation of liability clause. Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is therefore ALLOWED as to Count II. III.Count III: c. 93A Factual questions remain regarding the relationship, if any, between the breach of contract claims and Plaintiffs c. 93A claim. Chapter 93A claims may be grounded in activities more closely akin to either breach of contract or tort actions. A c. 93A claim more closely resembling a traditional breach of contract action is subject to limitation of liability provisions within the contract. See Canal Electric Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 406 Mass. 369, (377) (<HOLDING>). This is because, in purely commercial 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a limitation of liability provision in a sales contract was enforceable to bar a breach of warranty claim brought pursuant to glc 93a 11 (B) holding that a breach of settlement claim should have been brought in the court of federal claims pursuant to the tucker act (C) holding tenants vacating premises allegedly in breach of a lease was not enough to trigger c 93a liability (D) recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract (E) holding that trial court erred by dismissing breach of contract claim because appellee made promises to perform specific acts in contract the breach of which would give rise to a breach of contract action
Output (English): holding that a breach of settlement claim should have been brought in the court of federal claims pursuant to the tucker act