Opinion ID: 174351
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Dismissal of 93A Claims

Text: Lechoslaw's last claim of error is that the District Court should not have directed a verdict against him on his 93A claim because BoA failed to disclose facts which would have led Lechoslaw not to purchase the official check. [12] Chapter 93A punishes unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, § 2(a). As relevant to Lechoslaw's appeal, a business violates 93A if it fails to disclose to a buyer or prospective buyer any fact, the disclosure of which may have influenced the buyer or prospective buyer not to enter into the transaction. 940 C.M.R. § 3.16; V.S.H. Realty, Inc. v. Texaco, Inc., 757 F.2d 411, 416 (1st Cir.1985) (applying regulation to businesses). Our review of the directed verdict is de novo. Chamberlin v. Town of Stoughton, 601 F.3d 25, 30 (1st Cir.2010). A ruling that conduct violates Chapter 93A is a legal, not a factual determination. Incase Inc. v. Timex Corp., 488 F.3d 46, 56 (1st Cir.2007)(internal quotation marks omitted). Lechoslaw's contentions center around his argument that BoA's agents should have apprised him of before selling him the official check. According to Lechoslaw, BoA should have not induced him to purchase an official check, and he would not have been so induced had BoA explained the risks associated with its purchase. The risk that Lechoslaw wanted to be apprised ofand which he contends supports a violation of 93A for BoA's failure to disclosewas that the official check could be lost in transit from one bank to another, and that its payment would therefore be delayed. The evidence at trial was that Lechoslaw came to a BoA branch wanting to send money to Poland but he lacked the necessary information to do so via a wire transfer. Lechoslaw claims that this method was superior to the official check and that therefore BoA should have allowed him to use a wire transfer. BoA's witness explained that BoA could not initiate a wire transfer if the client did not bring with him a bank account number at the receiving bankin this case, a Polish bankand a routing identification number for that bank. Since Lechoslaw did not have a bank account in a Polish bank that could accept wire transfers from the United States, the BoA agent told Lechoslaw that his best option was an official check, which Lechoslaw obtained. Lechoslaw's arguments that BoA had an obligation to advise him of the possibility that the check could get lost in the mail and that this would delay the payment is simply unavailing. The risk that letters may be lost in the mail is commonly known; BoA did not need to state the obvious. There was no evidence that BoA violated chapter 93A in any of its dealings with Lechoslaw, and the District Court properly entered judgment in its favor.