Opinion ID: 806239
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Allegedly Promised Amenities

Text: Edlow's position is that RBW had a duty to provide certain promised amenities. In making this claim, the complaint refers to not only the p & s agreement,3 but also to the marketing materials, to oral statements made by RBW representatives, and to the Condominium Presentation's incorporated materials.4 Of the 3 For ease of exposition, we sometimes refer to the p & s agreements in the singular where the agreements contain identical provisions. 4 As described in section 9(a) of the p & s agreement, the Condominium Presentation consisted of (i) the current forms of the Residences Condominium Documents, the Master Condominium Documents, the Commercial Condominium Documents, the Deed and the Parking Documents, (ii) a proposed estimated budget for the Residences Condominium for its initial year of operation, (iii) the Project Outline Specifications; (iv) the form of Certificate of Limited -7- documents and communications referred to in the complaint, however, only the marketing materials and the alleged oral statements by RBW representatives discussed specific details of alleged promised amenities (e.g., a Guerlain spa, in contrast to a hotel spa; a three-star Michelin restaurant, rather than a hotel restaurant; and a Regent hotel, instead of a generic four-star hotel). But neither the marketing materials nor the oral statements were incorporated into the p & s agreement, and that agreement contains an unambiguous merger clause preventing their consideration. See Sound Techniques, Inc. v. Hoffman, 737 N.E.2d 920, 924 (Mass. App. Ct. 2000) (agreed upon and unambiguous merger clauses are effective unless fraud or deceit induced the contract, and thus they apply notwithstanding negligent oral misrepresentations). The primary merger clause reads as follows: The terms of this Agreement, together with the Condominium Presentation, constitute the entire agreement between the parties hereto and no statements made whether orally or in writing, by anyone with regard to the transaction which is the subject of this Agreement shall be construed as a part hereof unless the same be incorporated herein by writing and signed by Seller and Buyer. Buyer has relied only upon the warranties and representations set forth in this Agreement, if any, and Buyer hereby waives, to the extent permitted by law any and all implied warranties. No oral warranties, representations or statements shall be considered a part hereof. Warranty for the Unit and Common Area Limited Warranty Certificate; (v) the form of Tax Letter Agreement; (vi) the form of the 6(d) certificates and Parking Unit expense certificate; and (vii) a Specimen Owner's Title Insurance Policy and related title information. -8- P & s agreement § 21 (emphasis added); see also id. § 9(b) (Seller expressly disclaims any representations and warranties not expressly made in this Agreement in writing concerning the condition of the Unit or common areas and facilities . . . or any other matter . . . . (emphasis added)); id. § 9(d) (Other than as expressly set forth in this Agreement, . . . Buyer is not aware of and does not rely upon any such representations.); id. § 16(b) (The foregoing warranties shall constitute the only warranties . . . . Seller makes no other warranty or representation whatsoever or implied with respect thereto. (additional emphasis omitted)). This unambiguous merger language and the fact that the p & s agreement makes no mention of the marketing materials, either directly or by incorporation through the Condominium Presentation, place whatever those materials might say about the allegedly promised amenities beyond the contractual obligations of RBW. Nor can the additional written terms of the p & s agreement and the Master Deeds save this claim. Although the agreement references the Commercial and Hotel Units, it does not specify amenities to be included within those units, let alone any particular level of any amenity. Section 7 of the agreement describes what Necessary Facilities RBW does agree to substantially complete[] by the closing date and what parts of -9- the project may not be completed by the closing date,5 but nowhere does that section discuss amenities such as a three-star Michelin restaurant or a Guerlain spa. The p & s agreement also provides, in § 7(d), that the Buyer may not refuse to consummate Closing on account of construction work in progress or pending with respect to other units and/or the common areas and facilities . . . . According to the complaint, two of the amenities that he was most concerned about -- the Michelin restaurant and Guerlain spa -- were pending at the time of the scheduled closing, as RBW had stated that they were scheduled to open in early 2009; therefore, they could not have been grounds for refusing to close.6 The Condominium Presentation, by means of the explicitly incorporated Master Deeds, mentions some amenities in general terms, but it does not promise to provide specific amenities. Rather, the Deeds discuss amenities in the broader, and negative, context of reserving RBW's rights to include certain types of 5 This section of the p & s agreement defines Necessary Facilities as the Unit, and the common areas and facilities necessary for access thereto and use thereof . . . . Parts that RBW is not obligated to complete are described as including those whose incompleteness . . . will not unreasonably prevent the occupancy of the Unit or use of the Necessary Facilities, and finishes in hallways and lobbies need not be completed until unit construction on the floor on which the Unit is located is completed. 6 The record indicates that both the Michelin restaurant and a hotel actually opened at least ten months prior to the filing of Edlow's complaint. -10- amenities within the project.7 The Deeds' language conveys an intention to authorize RBW to use the Commercial and Hotel Units for such amenities, but it does not state RBW will provide particular amenities. Where there is no obligation to provide under a contract, there can be no breach of that obligation. Accordingly, Edlow's claims of breach that rest on the allegedly promised amenities necessarily fail.