Opinion ID: 440314
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Freeman's Claim for Relief Under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act

Text: 79 On appeal, the Freemans also assert that the district court erred in refusing to allow them, (1) to amend their complaint prior to trial in order that they might add a claim for relief under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) and, (2) to amend the judgment, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) to conform the pleadings to the proof presented at trial. 80 The MCPA declares unlawful any unfair method of competition and unfair or deceptive trade acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. MCPA Sec. 2(a). The Freemans assert that trade or commerce includes the sale of services and that the School sold a service for the care and education for April to Dr. Freeman. Further, since the jury found the School committed common law fraud during the course of that sale, the Freemans contend that the School's conduct qualifies as a deceptive practice under the Act. 81 Because we have upheld the district court's decision to grant judgment notwithstanding the verdict with regard to the School's liability to Dr. Freeman for fraud, the School's conduct does not come within the meaning of the Act, and any possible abuse of discretion in the district court's refusal to allow the Freemans to amend their complaint is, at most, harmless error. Thus, we affirm the district court and do not reach the issue of whether the educational and custodial services performed by a not-for-profit institution qualifies as trade or commence within the meaning of the statute. 82