Opinion ID: 806239
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A

Text: Taken together, §§ 2 and 9 of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, permit a plaintiff to sue for injury resulting from unfair or deceptive business practices. Gossels v. Fleet Nat'l Bank, 902 N.E.2d 370, 378 (Mass. 2009). There is no binding definition of what constitutes an unfair practice under [the Act], and [t]he existence of unfair . . . practices must be determined from the circumstances of each case. Green v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mass., Inc., 713 N.E.2d 992, 996 (Mass. App. Ct. 1999) (citation omitted)(internal quotation marks omitted). Edlow says that RBW violated the Act [i]n making material misrepresentations to [him], in failing to provide accurate and timely information concerning the status of the 12 The plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231A § 1, et seq., that he is entitled to the return of his deposits on the second unit, with interest. We affirm the district court's denial of this request, because the liquidated damages provision was not unconscionable. -24- project, in failing to make disclosures that would have influenced [him] not to close on [the first unit], in insisting on its right to retain [his] 20% deposit as liquidated damages despite the unconscionability of the forfeiture, and in failing to provide full performance as of the date set for the closing.13 We have explained why the latter two claims cannot form any basis for relief. Additionally, whether or not proof of the alleged misrepresentations or failures to disclose could lead a fact-finder to conclude that RBW has committed an 'immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous' business act as required by [chapter] 93A, see Gossels, 902 N.E.2d at 375, under Massachusetts law Edlow cannot prevail on claims for unfair and deceptive trade practices unless [he] can also prove that [his] reliance on the allegedly false statements was reasonable. Mass. Laborers' Health & Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc., 62 F. Supp. 2d 236, 241-42 (D. Mass. 1999) (emphasis in original) (citation omitted); see also Aspinall v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 813 N.E.2d 476, 488 (Mass. 2004) (holding that conduct is actionably deceptive when it has the capacity to mislead consumers, acting reasonably under the circumstances, to act differently from the way they otherwise would have acted (i.e., to entice a reasonable consumer to purchase the product) (emphasis added)). For the reasons previously discussed, 13 We presume that the closing referred to at the end of this claim was the scheduled August closing on the second unit. -25- no reasonable fact-finder could conclude that Edlow's reliance upon the allegedly false statements was reasonable.14