Opinion ID: 447587
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claims for Breach of Warranty and Breach of Contract

Text: 30 Johnson alleges that ETS breached its warranties to her, because the LSAT was not what it purported to be--an accurate indicator of law school performance that could not be skewed by training or preparation. However, rather than alleging damage from the variation in her scores, Johnson asserted instead that her 623 score was cancelled in bad faith. This is the essence of her breach of contract claim. Therefore, the district court correctly concluded that her breach of warranty claim stated no claim independent of her breach of contract claim. 31 Johnson's breach of contract claim must be viewed against the background of the information bulletin distributed by ETS to all LSAT candidates, which stated in part: 32 If doubts are raised about a candidate's scores after they have been reported, ETS will investigate the circumstances of the testing. Educational Testing Service reserves the right to cancel any test score, if in the opinion of ETS there is adequate reason to question its validity. Before exercising this right, ETS will offer the candidate a retest at no additional fee. 33 Accepting Johnson's contention that Massachusetts law--which the parties agree applies to the breach of contract claim--requires ETS to exercise its contractual rights reasonably and in good faith, see Salem Glass Co. v. Joseph Rugo, Inc., 343 Mass. 103, 176 N.E.2d 30 (1961), summary judgment is still appropriate. As this court observed in a similar context, a plaintiff cannot force a trial by pointing to smoke but not fire, and [h]ere we do not even see any smoke. Packish, 697 F.2d at 27. 34 It is not necessary to recount all the indicia of ETS's reasonableness and good faith. We think it sufficient to note that ETS sought the services of three separate handwriting experts after the University of Pennsylvania questioned the 300-point discrepancy in Johnson's scores; that ETS provided Johnson with an opportunity to be heard and to be represented by counsel; and that ETS offered Johnson, without charge, the option of a retest in which she would take the same April 1971 examination that resulted in the 623 score. These and other factors indicate that ETS went beyond the letter of its contractual promise. While Johnson is entitled to all favorable inferences, [s]he is not entitled to build a case on the gossamer threads of whimsy, speculation and conjecture. Manganaro v. Delaval Separator Co., 309 F.2d 389, 393 (1st Cir.1962). 35