Opinion ID: 199388
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Replacement of the Tubes Upon Failure

Text: 41 We also reject Wellons' argument that Saint-Gobain violated Chapter 93A by repudiating its promise to replace the tubes when they failed and instead stringing Wellons along until Georgia-Pacific demanded removal of all ceramic tubes. The facts amply support the district court's contrary conclusion. The record reflects the existence of a legitimate dispute about what caused the tubes to fail. The jury's verdict that Saint-Gobain was responsible for their failure -- a verdict reached after weighing a great deal of technical evidence, including conflicting testimony from expert witnesses for each side -- neither establishes the absence of a legitimate dispute nor dictates an independent finding of Chapter 93A liability. See Knapp, 640 N.E.2d at 1106; cf. Quaker State Oil Refining Corp. v. Garrity Oil Co., 884 F.2d 1510, 1513-14 (1st Cir. 1989) (The mere fact that defendant did not prevail on its counterclaims is no signal that the counterclaims were groundless.). 42 This was not a case where the seller continued to withhold material information after the buyer was experiencing serious problems with the product it had purchased. Cf. Cambridge Plating, 85 F.3d at 769-70. Nor was this a case where one side continued to refuse to pay amounts due under a contract in order to extract a favorable settlement . . . for less than the amount [it] knew that it owed by repeatedly promising to pay, not doing so, stringing out the process, and forcing [the other side] to sue. Cf. Arthur D. Little, 147 F.3d at 55-56; cf. also Commercial Union Ins., 217 F.3d at 43 (company's refusal to honor reinsurance contract, which reflected lengthy pattern of foot-dragging and stringing [the other side] along, with the intent (as its own witnesses admitted) of pressuring [the other side] to compromise its claim -- had the extortionate quality that marks a 93A violation). In addition, Wellons never demanded that Saint-Gobain replace the tubes that failed, as Saint-Gobain was obligated to do under the warranty. 9 43 Wellons also argues that Saint-Gobain's offer to sell a test batch of CRYSTAR at a discounted price was extortionate. The district court made no finding as to this offer or its implications, and so again we view the record in the light most favorable to the ruling. We conclude that Saint-Gobain's offer reflected an attempt to reach some agreement in light of the situation and of Saint-Gobain's rights under the contract. That is not extortion. 10