Source: http://massachusettslandlords.com/tyler-v-michaels-stores/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 07:04:40+00:00

Document:
Today the Supreme Judicial Court of MA issued a decision saying that the invasion of a consumer’s legal right (for example a lease that had language that was inconsistent with some statute or regulation) may be a violation of 93A and may be unfair and deceptive but unless it has caused the consumer some kind of separate, identifiable harm, it is not actionable under 93A. In other words, no more $25 awards coming with thousands of attorney fees without any real injury to the tenant.
I have written about this in the past and sharply criticized one out-of-the-mainstream Housing Court Judge, Judge Dina Fein from Western Housing Court who stubbornly refuses to take the past hints from the SJC and to stop abusing Leardi (see http://massachusettslandlords.com/fein-follow-the-law-please/ and http://massachusettslandlords.com/judge-dina-fein-follow-the-law-please-part-2/).
Unfortunately again the SJC did not have the courage to utter the 3 magic words – “We overrule Leardi”. Instead, they beat around the bush trying to cover and over-explain their past mistakes. Where is the courageous court that was the first in the nation to declare gay marriages constitutional?
“A complaint under G.L. c. 93A, § 9(1), see note 4, supra, must allege that the plaintiff has been “injured” by the act or practice claimed to be unfair or deceptive and therefore unlawful under c. 93A, § 2. Tyler relies on Leardi v. Brown, 394 Mass. 151 (1985) (Leardi ), and argues that a violation of § 105 (a ) directly equates with an injury under c. 93A, § 9(1), and therefore, a complaint alleging a violation of § 105 (a ), without more, satisfies the injury requirement of c. 93A, § 9, and entitles the plaintiff to recover damages, nominal or otherwise.

References: § 9
 § 2
 v. 
 § 105
 § 9
 § 105
 § 9