Opinion ID: 196026
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mass. Gen. L. ch. 93A Violation

Text: 23 The complaint also alleged that WCIS' advertisement and sale of the foreclosed property violated c. 93A Secs. 2 and 9. Section 2(a) of chapter 93A makes unlawful unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. Section 9 authorizes suit by [a]ny person, other than a person entitled to bring action under section eleven of this chapter, who has been injured by another person's use or employment of any method, act or practice declared to be unlawful by section two.... Section 11 authorizes suit by persons who engage[ ] in the conduct of any trade or commerce. 24 It is unclear, and neither the bankruptcy court nor the district court addressed the issue, whether the Simones were engaged in the conduct of trade or commerce and, therefore, required to bring suit under Sec. 11. The test is whether the defendant's conduct giving rise to the 93A violation occurred in connection with ... a plaintiff individual acting in a business context. Michael C. Gilleran, The Law of Chapter 93A Sec. 8.5 (1989 & Supp. 1994). At the time of the foreclosure and sale, the Simones were renting the subject dwelling to two families, and were no longer living there themselves. Section 1(b) defines trade and commerce to include the rent ... of ... any property. 25 It is unnecessary to resolve this issue, however, since the Simones have failed to meet the requisite standard under either Sec. 11 or Sec. 9. The defendant in a Sec. 9 case will or will not have violated Sec. 9 depending on whether the defendant acted in an equitable manner toward the plaintiff. The equity standard in Sec. 9 cases requires that the defendant's conduct not have violated some established concept of unfairness or otherwise be immoral, unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous. M. Gilleran, supra, Sec. 4.7 (citing cases); see also Gerli v. G.K. Hall & Co., 851 F.2d 452, 454 (1st Cir. 1988). A plaintiff claiming unfairness under Sec. 11 must show rascality, that is, a violation of conventional business ethical norms. M. Gilleran, supra, Sec. 4.8 (citing cases); see also Midwest Precision Services, Inc. v. PTM Inds. Corp., 887 F.2d 1128, 1139 (1st Cir. 1989). 26 The bankruptcy court specifically found that WCIS acted in good faith and that it behaved in a commercially reasonable manner. Given those findings, which were not clearly erroneous, we conclude that the Simones failed to establish that WCIS' conduct violated Mass. Gen. L. ch. 93A. Therefore, the bankruptcy court did not err in dismissing that claim.